Microsoft Under Third EU Investigation for OOXML 194
The Wall Street Journal and Information Week reported this morning that EU regulators have announced a third investigation into Microsoft's conduct on the desktop. This latest action demonstrates that while the EU has settled the case against Microsoft that ran for almost a decade, it remains as suspicious as ever regarding the software vendor's conduct, notwithstanding Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years. The news can be found in a story reported by Charles Forelle bylined in Brussells this morning. According to the Journal, the investigation will focus on whether Microsoft 'violated antitrust laws during a struggle last year to ratify its Office
software file format as an international standard.' The article also says that the regulators are 'stepping up scrutiny of the issue.'
Silly Europeans (Score:4, Funny)
Compassion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Compassion (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hope some day, not too far in the future, we get to a point where the US and Europe work together in important international matters. Together, without trying to be identical. Rather, each having its own strong points, and filling in for each other as appropriate. Working in different ways toward a shared goal of democracy and peace.
Maybe I sound very dreamy, but I really don't think it's necessarily unrealistic, if a new US administration introduces a vision where the US is more multilaterally cooperative rather than bullying, willing to lead where leading is called for, and willing to cooperate where cooperation is called for.
(Presumably Europe has to modify its ways too, but I find it more difficult to pinpoint how.)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I sound very dreamy, but I really don't think it's necessarily unrealistic, if a new US administration introduces a vision where the US is more multilaterally cooperative rather than bullying, willing to lead where leading is called for, and willing to cooperate where cooperation is called for.
That's pretty much how it's worked for a long while. The US maintains the current hegemony and the EU provides considerable additional economic support. Also, the EU has far greater experience with working international cooperation so they provide that experience. As I see it, with the passing of the USSR threat, the EU and its member countries want more of a role in international level politics. There's nothing wrong with changing the terms of cooperation, but let's not pretend that we weren't cooperatin
Re: (Score:2)
From the context of the post I would guess it means that the Bush administration is operating as an unaccountable corporate shill rather than a 'for the people' government. Bush Corporation... BushCo.
Pythonic (Score:5, Funny)
Our two weapons are surprise, chocolate, and sprouts!
Re: (Score:2)
Three! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sprouts (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see your Van Damme and raise you a Vin Diesel.
Ow! I think I damaged my brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, can we go out and come back in?
Among our many weapons...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LESS COMBATIVE? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or do they mean, "less combative, more abhorrent"?
ooxml-scam, scox-scam, acacia-scam (Score:2)
Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years? WTF?
How, exactly, has MS been "less combative"...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You been asleep the last 5 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to get out from under that rock I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
M$ did this purely for B$ marketing purposes. The extreme and severe nature of the attempted fraud and the damage it could to do to the global acceptance of those standards an
The THIRD investigation? (Score:4, Funny)
Somewhat ironic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is mine but WGA doesn't think so.
MS abuses its monopoly, that is the problem. OOXML is just another example of them trying to force everyone to do things their way and if that means breaking a few rules so be it. If the ISO actually controlled OOXML then they would be able to fix some of the more hideous problems with OOXML but MS has publicly stated that they will retain control of the 'standard'. Basically, they just want OOXML to be an ISO standard so they
It was the EU that suggested MS submit OOXML! (Score:3, Informative)
uh-huh (Score:5, Funny)
uh-uh (Score:3, Informative)
Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
However, submitting a format for standardization and running around buying votes and playing dirty tricks all the way are two rather distinct things and MS is being investigated for the latter (which, sure as hell, was not suggested to it by the EU).
Learning by doing (Score:2, Interesting)
Guys, quit mocking Ballmer (Score:2)
*? Source unknown, so validity is questionable.
require more than one complete implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
Should OpenOffice.org not have a definite advantage here?
Word for Word Lift (Score:3, Interesting)
My blog entry begins:
Sound familiar?- Andy
Re:The EU can go to hell (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
-erick
http://www.yourfavoritegadgets.com/ [yourfavoritegadgets.com]
The EU needs to go somewhere (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The EU needs to go somewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
no matter how much money you have, it is never a good idea to get into a standoff with a sovereign nation (unless you are also a sovereign nation, and then it's only a good idea sometimes).
I don't know what the EU could do to impose the rule of law on Microsoft - suspending business licenses there might be the only thing Microsoft would really notice, and even then, that's not remotely guaranteed.
The EU could invalidate all intellectual property protections for microsoft products in the EU.
Remember that the right of the corporation to even exist as an entity in the EU is at the sufferance of the government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could but keep in mind those protections are part of the post WWII agreements. There are probably better solutions that don't involve teenagers dying.
Re:The EU needs to go somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft attempts to strong arm the EU, the EU could then exert its right to seize assets. Microsoft's greatest assets are its IP and if the EU legally seizes Microsoft copyrights the same WWII agreements you refer to would cause the change of ownership to be recognized globally, not just in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, taking a loss eventually generates profit by decreased costs. MS doesn't have to spend as much to keep up the business because they essentially pay the EU (with the fine/asset seizure), and era
Re: (Score:2)
Judicial systems will generally take legal avenues for imposing penalties, rather than changing the rules just because they feel like it. Legal avenues would mean things like imposing fines, and if they're not paid, sending in the bailiffs (i.e. seizing assets).
Basically it works mostly the same way it would work in the US, astonishing though that may seem.
Re: (Score:2)
'Intellectual property' isn't an asset that can be seized, then? When you're dealing with a debtor whose sole assets of value are intangibles like patents and copyrights, must you restrict yourself to only seizing physical assets?
Meddling goes both ways (Score:2, Interesting)
MS is trying to
Re: (Score:2)
oh! Yes please! When can you start?
There tends to be little difference in things that are legal or illegal. At most the boudries are different. There's no need for a rigid, uniform system. COmpanies just have to abied by the rules in each market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is trying to get OOXML accepted using MS tactics, and that is the problem. Buying votes is not legal, and buying votes to get an unfair advantage does not make it any more acceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the EU and US get stuck into another trade war, and someone in Beijing has a really good laugh. It's happened before. Remember Bush's short-lived steel tariff?
I doubt this particular issue w
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't a nation, sovereign or otherwise.
"The EU could invalidate all intellectual property protections for microsoft products in the EU."
This would be a contravention of the EC's rules and treaties.
"Remember that the right of the corporation to even exist as an entity in the EU is at the sufferance of the government."
The EU isn't a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know in the USA we have federal law that mandates all products and systems have multiple sources... i.e. no one vendor can dick over the govt and they pay good money to build duplicate systems in another OS... say on HP-UX and AS400 and SUN just to have "diversity". The rules apply to everybody EXCEPT Microsof
In which planet do you live? (Score:2)
Normally somebody breaking the law constantly will be dealt done in more harshere way. You stupid scenario is simply imposible.
Would MS tried to pull that one (they are not that stupid) the EU would confiscate their assets in the EU, keep the business running and would put lots of asses in a court of law.
Also you are blissfully unaware that MS may have not much cash left if the Yahoo acquisition goes ahead...
Re:The EU can go to hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The EU can go to hell (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The EU can go to hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The EU can go to hell (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's where capitalism will go if left unregulated.
The problem is not with capitalism (Score:2)
The problem is not with capitalism. Unduly powerful entitites can arise under socialism or communism. The problem is with corporations that have been allowed to grow too large and powerful. Rather, we should say the problem is corporatism. And corporatism is fascism-- which the government allows by proxy, in the public sector.
Only if it promises to take MS with it (Score:2)
being dictated to by a monopolist substantially differs from
being dictated to by a nanny-state:
in either case, you're told exactly how much cash to kiss goodbye, at exactly what frequency.
There simply isn't a good case, technical or otherwise, against ODF.
Some find the vampire-on-vampire action strangely...interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Somebody investigate the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Somebody investigate the EU (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is why is the US government letting Microsoft do anything they want?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no sarcasm intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all the crap they pulled over trying to get OOXML standardised don't sit here and tell me they're using "standard practices". They used practically every dirty trick in the book!
Re: (Score:2)
(I wouldn't write it, though, I suck at English.)
Re:no sarcasm intended. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a word, Bullshit.
First of all, a new document can't really be backward compatible with a previous document, but rather with the program. The new MS Office program is backward compatible with the older MS document formats, to the extent that it can open and save those old formats properly (which is usually pretty good, but not perfect). Clearly, OOXML is not co
Re: (Score:2)
Sun did this to help open up the market, so that they would be able to compete on an even playing field. This doesn't just benefit sun, but also any other company wanting to compete in that market.
Ofcourse it wasn't done
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no sarcasm intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft on the other hand has 90% of desktops and a large number of servers under it's sway. If they make a unilateral move, they feel NO pain because of it, even if it hurts the consumers. If GM said "Screw this, we're going to force everyone to use kerosene as their fuel!", people would buy other cars. When Microsoft says the same thing, people have to do it, or not be able to share documents, etc. THAT, my friend, is the difference.
Just doing their much-needed job ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is not. It is simply faced with a single-minded regulator which takes its job seriously and isn't fazed by the fact that Microsoft is a brazen repeat-offender.
GM does not have an 80% market share in the car market. Microsoft does have such a market share in the desktop OS market. That's a big difference.What Microsoft is currently doing with OOXML is a thoroughly unethical (paying companies PR contributions to vote in favour of OOXML, offering small countries rebates to vote in favour of OOCML, and suddenly stuffing ISO standards committees with pro-microsoft members who never before had an interest in ISO procedures in their lives) attempt to continue its lock-in, which regrettably seems to have a chance or working. (see e.g. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776 [consortiuminfo.org] and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/ooxml_eu_probe_iso/ [theregister.co.uk] )
I see absolutely nothing to salute Microsoft about regarding its determination to disregard fair-competition and anti-trust regulations and I support the EU in this matter. Why don't we see any US regulators step up to the plate?
Re:no sarcasm intended. (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft holds a monopoly position in two key areas; desktop operating systems and office integration software. It's attempt to buy itself ISO certification was a damned dirty trick, and an attempt to leverage its monopoly to maintain market dominance. It's being picked on because a monopoly is held up to a different standard than another company.
And the EU certainly isn't picking on Microsoft alone. Both Apple and Google seem to be in its sights as well.
Re:no sarcasm intended. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it!
Please be specific about the details wrt Microsoft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does that work? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the standard is that it is not complete as written. It leaves big gaping holes which point to closed doors; closed-source Microsoft products. And the purpose of submitting it as a standard is to have it used in places in which actual open standards should be mandatory, such as when interfacing with government. To require a closed standard (however open it pretends to be) to work with a government is to grant a monopoly. Why should the people of any nation ever pay for such a thing?
Microsoft is not a "non-EU" company. They are multinational. They operate in the EU. If they choose to stop operating in the EU, then the EU will have no power over them and they can do whatever they want - somewhere else.
Microsoft has no god-given right to profits or even to do business in the EU. They are permitted to do so because it is believed that it is beneficial to trade. When they are no longer a beneficial influence on the market, why should they be permitted to participate? Because of some standard of justice? If the market cannot sustain their influence, then their influence should be eliminated or at the least mitigated to permit the market to continue to function, or the market should be superseded by the monopoly in question. Un(?)fortunately, Microsoft cannot provide the needs of the entire UK software market (although they would like you to believe that they can) and so this is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that most of what is written is garbage.
Re:How does that work? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the facts:
1. Many organizations, in particular governments, are beginning to mandate the use of open file formats.
2. A potential competitor to one of Microsoft's core product lines (read: profit center), OpenOffice.org, uses ISO open file formats; ODF, and is thus of some great interest to these government agencies.
3. Microsoft cannot afford to have its Office profit center undermined either by a competing product or by a competing, open standard like ODF.
4. Microsoft creates OOXML, a document standard so enormous and so riddled with proprietary references that it would be impossible for anyone not privy to Microsoft's older formats (which are not published) to actually produce their own OOXML-compliant product.
5. Microsoft then attempts to subvert the ISO by trying to buy votes. The purpose of this is to get OOXML ISO certification, so that when a government agency mandates an open document format, Microsoft can maneuver OOXML, which can only really be utilized by Microsoft Office, by trumpeting its "open" designation.
In short, OOXML is a rather elaborate scam, involving an unimplentable format, subverting the ISO and using it to maintain its all-important Office product line from meaningful competition.
Re:How does that work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does that work? (Score:5, Interesting)
So were there a software fully compatible with the OOXML standard it would be completely useless in practice. And were it to follow Microsoft extensions it would need to follow, i.e. play catch-up giving Microsoft a huge advantage.
Still Microsoft could (and would) claim "ISO standard" in sales material (as you say in your point 5).
Re:How does that work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because MS-Office will remain the path of least resistance. If management (or top-level bureaucracy) can tell their masters "We're going to an open format just like your legislation says", while retaining the same product line already in place, then Microsoft has done what it needs to do.
The point of the OOXML scam is to get an ISO certification so as to lend a hand to their business partners, resellers and so forth so that when Smalltown, USA decides to go with an open file format, these guys can walk in and make submissions to local government officials saying "Hey, no prob, Office 2009 uses OOXML, certified by no less than the ISO as an open document format."
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies. They're mostly a trade barrier rather than a legitimate regulatory body.
There are plenty of cases in which EU companies are fined. For example, companies producing elevators [iht.com] and beer [europa.eu]. Those cases are not likely to get much attention in US news, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The EU takes on everyone (Score:4, Informative)
That's just bullshit, the EU regularly goes after European companies you just don't hear or read about it because they're not American companies. Typical American complaints.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, when somebody offers bribes to gain a competitive advantage on the United States, who squeals louder than Americans? They even made a law about it, if I remember correctly.
'Scuse me, I have to go cough up some of the hypocrisy I'm choking on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, they [findarticles.com] never [msn.com] prosecute [bbc.co.uk] big [dw-world.de] EU [time.com] companies [forbes.com].
You have answered your won question - sort of (Score:2)
That does not make it all right.
Let me explain: if it was in my best interest to murder somebody, that would not make such a murder legal. Believe it or not, the same principal applies to msft. I know it's hard for the msft shills to grasp, but msft is not above the law.
This is a very clear case of msft abusing their monopoly position. Msft keeps everybody locked into msft's office products by have a proprietary format.
No foreign company is even in the top ten. (Score:2, Informative)
I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies. They're mostly a trade barrier rather than a legitimate regulatory body.
You serious? Have ever thought that maybe you only hear about the American ones because you're er, American? Neither Microsoft or Apple are in the top ten fines from the European commission- I don't even think any of them are American. And IT isn't even in the top ten sectors for fines. How the hell did you think you knew enough to claim the EU regulators were nothing but trade barriers?
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSL215845620070221 [reuters.com]
I would paste the whole table but it won't let m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EU only getting half of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Point the first: Microsoft does not provide adequate product lines for the desktop market. They are discontinuing Windows XP (the third service pack is already what, a year late?) and Vista is a gigantic step backwards in many respects, especially performance -- even with the new service pack, as reported here yesterday.
Point the second: Microsoft's continuing abuse of their monopoly position has a chilling effect on innovation. When a new technology comes out, Microsoft either purchases and ruins it, or poorly emulates it and thus marginalizes it. Microsoft has in the past even gone so far as to wrap their functions in other functions with delay loops, and not document the originals, reserving them for their own use, so that competitors' software runs artificially poorly on their operating system! Seriously, Microsoft has done more damage to computing than all the accidentally sloppy programming ever executed.
And speaking of executed, BillyG has parlayed his theft and betrayal into a position atop the Gates Foundation pyramid. He's in control of big boatloads of money cruising around the globe. He gives with one hand and takes with the other ("Dark cloud over good works of gates foundation", title of a lovely article IIRC) and just whose pocket is he in, anyway? Certainly the USDOJ had him dead to rights when they patted him on the back and sent him off to play with all that money. No matter how you look at the situation - from a technical standpoint, or a human one - the whole damned thing is just a collection of tragedies.
The point of the previous paragraph is to point out that if you think that Microsoft is holding the world of computing together, you are fucking hallucinating, because in reality if anything gets accomplished in computing it is in spite of Microsoft, not because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about office software, and yes, openOffice is still seen by many as a project with European roots as it was oiginally developped by StarDivision [wikipedia.org] in Hamburg and it was quite popular. I knew and used it long before Sun bought the source.
Re:EU only getting half of it (Score:4, Insightful)
What I do like to ask you is to stop projecting your own nationalistic feelings onto others. This is not action against the US, this is action against abusive monopolists. How do you feel that taking very little action is working out for the US in the telecom sector?
In the EU we have a Commissioner for Competition [wikipedia.org]. She takes action against abusive behaviour by large companies. This affects companies like telcos and banks in the EU, but also companies like Microsoft. I think that the actions taken by this organization are generally effective and taken in the eye of consumer interest. I find it hard to believe that there would be much nationalism working against the US.
What you should also take into account is that the EU is not a nation, and nationalistic feelings about it are pretty rare. Typically people in the EU feel more strongly about competition with their neighbouring member states than about US companies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Close To 20 Billion Dollars A Year At Stake (Score:5, Interesting)
If they lose a significant share, then support for alternatives will increase and lockin will decrease, eventually causing a cascade reaction causing microsoft to lose significant levels of marketshare elsewhere and be forced to fight against competitors in a more even marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/012407-eu-fines-siemens-for-role.html [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The European Commission instigates the investigation. A decision to pursue is usually made in response to complaints about monopoly abuses as defined by EC law. The exception to to this is mergers, consolidations, or agreements between companies that have the potential to significantly reduce competition in a particular market or set of markets, which must be pre-approved by the Commission, and will therefore be investigated autom
Monopoly = !FreeMarket (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the idea of monopolies...