Microsoft hit by record EU fine

[eSnow]

So other than a temporary loss of sales, what would stop microsoft from refusing to release windows in Europe.

The EU will soon have 500Mio inhabitants, the worlds economies #3-7 (I believe) are part of it. 25% of international gross domestic product are created here (US: just short of 20%). MS may lose something like 30 - 40% of its revenue _at once_. Just for childishly refusing to abide by the rules of the market they are trying to sell to and trying to prove that US companies are above laws other than US law?

Yeah, right

 

[Zaty]

I would like to comment on the integration of IE into the OS. Some people have alreday partially pointed out what I'm going to say in plain English:

IE (since Windows 98 and IE4) is just some sort of extension for Windows Explorer to display html files. Don't believe it? See for yourself: Open Windows Explorer (not IE!) and make sure that address field is visible (it's off by default) and type any url into that field. What happens? Explorer turns itself mysteriously into IE! That's why I'm sure you can remove this extension. Explorer would just lose its capability of displaying html files.

 

[Foocha]

Explorer turns itself mysteriously into IE!

I suspect that we are very likely to see a similar trick in a future version of Mac OS X, where a Finder window can switch to becoming a Safari, iTunes or iPhoto window depending on the resource that it is displaying. This is surely why the UI of these apps is converging.

For example, point Finder at your photos folder and it autmatically switches to iPhoto. Point it at the Web and it automatically becomes Safari.

There's nothing wrong with this type of functionality, provided your structured it in such a way that it's modular, so that, for example, Web Core could be swapped out for an alternative rendering engine.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Missing the points

This thread seems to have alot of people repeating themselves, repeating each other and missing the same points over and over (and I only bothered to read the first 4 pages).

First, M$ lost their US case, their "punishment" was being awarded a greater share of the US education market, and being allowed to pay their fine with equipment worth a measly fraction of what the fine was supposed to. This most likely a case of doing the right people the right favours. This is why we hate them. This is not playing fair.

The only reason M$ became a monpoly is from (basically) a single business deal, and the continued stupidity of other people (IBM first, then Apple...I'm sure the list goes on.)
As for innovation etc, recall that the product which put them where they are is DOS. Which they bought from someone else (Who'd be in the above list between IBM and Apple if I knew his/their name(s)).
Purely an opportunistic business deal. I don't doubt that Bill knows his way around a computer, but that's not why he's so rich.

On the integration issue: IE and WMP can be removed (I think they had planned to further integrate in the next version of Windows), but not easily removed (in the case of the brain-dead (for legal reasons) consumer) or cheaply removed (in the case of a network administrator - he finishes updating the OS on 500+ machines, then has to go through them all again removing bits, and these guys don't work cheap, and there's downtime to consider).
M$ claimed that they couldn't remove it easily (It's not us claiming that you can't remove it), to try and avoid punishment from the EU.
The people more affected by this are the PC vendors, who while they're stuck with windows, should be allowed to install their choice of media player and/or web browser. HP have just struck a deal with Apple to produce their own iPod, presumably they'll want to ship iTunes with at least some of their consumer PCs (or Apple will want them to anyway).
M$ would like to stop such deals taking place. When they can't compete or don't get their own way, they throw money at the problem until it goes away. (Not difficult in the US if the media is to be believed).

As for "what if Apple had a monopoly?" Would they be as bad? I think not.
If Apple were motivated purely by greed, they would have ditched the idea of selling hardware, and released OS X for use on x86 machines (Its UNIX, remember).
With the current unrest growing among windows users about all the virus attacks and hackers, they could worry M$ at the very least. They would probably make more cash than they do now from it.
Intel have been asking them to do it for years, and still Steve refuses.

How much is windows these days?
I'd be shocked to learn you buy it (on its own) for less than the $90 tag on Panther....

 

[Stella]

Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!

I agree with you wholeheartedly, EU economies would flounder without Microsoft coming to their rescue - showing them how real American enterprise save them from sliding back into the Middle Ages. Without American industrial leadership Europe would surely drown in a morass of mediocrity. Do you think America invented democracy too ?

 

[singletrack]

Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!

We have this thing called 'humour' in Europe. It comes in many forms - wit, satire and even sarcasm. Some countries around the world are renowned for their inability to interoperate with European humour due to only having one brand of humour embedded into their systems at birth. Some of those countries occupants of course can find the ability to install other kinds of humour but there's little impetus to do so amongst the general masses.

The important thing about this EU ruling is that M$ is being told they have to interoperate and fess up the secrets. Humour aside, this is monumentally important for anyone that just wants their computers to talk to each other without aggravation. It's also important as the EU are saying to M$ that they shouldn't include application software in the OS (and media player and IE are applications not part of the OS) in such a way that OEMs can't replace them with equivalents applications of their choice. The fine is an aside.

 

[djdarlek]

is it just me or are we being a bit harsh on M$... ok, i hate them and love Apple as anyone.. BUT how long before Apple gets its ass kicked for bundling so many of their iApps with the OS?!?!? ok, Apple doesn't have anything near the marketshare of M$ BUT thats one thing they're working on! I can just see it now...

2010... M$ bankrupted after a virus attacks every user financially by decrypting bank details and millions of billions goes missing.. 2011.. Apple has 90% Market share... 2015.. lawsuit against apple for making its users use iTunes 10.....

just my 50pences worth

 

[Stolid]

Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.

 

[Stella]

I am from Europe.

it was also extremely early.. like 7.30am! :-D

I see the error of my ways !

We have this thing called 'humour' in Europe.

 

[DeepIn2U]

It's also important as the EU are saying to M$ that they shouldn't include application software in the OS (and media player and IE are applications not part of the OS) in such a way that OEMs can't replace them with equivalents applications of their choice. The fine is an aside.

Agreed! Manufacturers of complete PC's are unable to remove WMP & IE because of the contracts imposed by M$.

As for the this same legal matter applying to Apple?? Guess it won't happen because Apple "Makes" their own hardware! The competition is on the applications - which they entice competition by working with companies closely. Indeed competition is bought out from time to time, but I don't believe their forced out because of a deal between the OS & the manufacturer of the complete system -their one & the same. There's a number of threads here on this topic.

 

[MOFS]

WTO? WTF?

No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. Of course Europeans need a legal remedy. But then, so do the Japanese, the Chinese, the Kuwaitis, and on down the line. What if the EU decided to break-up Microsoft, as was proposed here? That would have gone over like a lead balloon in the U.S. Somewhere, it has to become unfair to Microsoft.

Devil's advocate: Country X is a very large market. They are also home to Software, Inc - a new company. They want to protect their fledgling industry. Currently, like almost everyone else, nearly all comuters in X use Microsoft products. Why can't Country X determine that Microsoft is engaging in unfair bundling practices and fine them some ridiculous sum of money? Hurts a foreign company who will either have to pay up, pass the fine along to customers in X via increased price for Windows, or leave a large, lucrative market. Either way, Software, Inc wins and Country X has helped it's own.

I'm not saying this will happen, but when every multi-national is subject to the whims of every regulatory body in the world....

Something has to be arranged (perhaps it already is) through a multinational body like the WTO to insure that everyone plays fair with everyone else's companies.

Are you talking about the same WTO that allows huge multinationals to rape third world countries dry of thir on resources? The same WTO that allows subsidies from the EU, USA et al on their crops so much so that it is often cheaper for someone in a developing country to buy their food from those nations rather than their own?

Microsoft does 30% of its business in the EU, therefore it makes sense for the EU courts to take it to court! The rules are the same for all companies - not just Microsoft and not just those from the "good ol' US of A" - and I would bet that the reverse would be true, were any EU company to infringe on American laws in the same way as Microsoft on EU/ European laws.

Anyway - this is gonna take 4 years to happen now that Microsoft have decided to appeal. The worst is yet to come, however, with the threat of (more) trade barriers being imposed by the USA against EU companies a real possibility.

 

[RHutch]

Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.

The US courts only "addressed" the wrongs that had been committed by MS in the US against US consumers (because that's what they should address-the things that MS did wrong in their jurisdiction). And the US decision only took into account things that MS did before the time of that suit (more than 5 years ago?). The situation in the EU has to do with new actions, affecting different companies, and different consumers, at a different point in time.

By the way, who is the "we" that you are referring to bringing actions in both the US and EU. While the same companies may have been affected, the actions were not brought by US companies. The case in the US was brought by the DoJ. I believe Real has brought a suit against MS in California, but it's not the same as the DoJ action or the EU action.

I haven't seen anywhere that says that a US company is suing a US company in the EU. The thing in the EU is a government action.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

For God's sake.....

Is anybody bothering to read ANY of this thread?!!!!

EU: "We want people to have the ability to choose which software they run."
M$: "We can't easily remove our apps from our OS."
EU: "We have decided that such an arrangement is anti-competitive, and thus the consumers will lose out. Please supply your competitors in this field the information they require to compete with you, remove your apps from at least one version of your OS, and give us a big pile of cash please."
M$: "Don't want to." <Sulks>

Monopolies may not be illegal, but they aren't allowed (more often than not). Thats why there is a Monopolies and Mergers Commision.

Imagine if a one company had control of 90% of the Car or Air travel or Oil business. How rich and powerful would they be? Or one corp supplying 90% of the worlds electricity? Scary thoughts, when you see how M$ operate....

Here is an analogy for those who believe it unfair that M$ are being tried twice for the 'same' crime:
Police Officer: "You're under arrest for murder."
Mass Murderer: "Don't bother mate, I was convicted of murder years ago, so its perfectly fine. I'm allowed."

Double Jeopardy means you cannot be treid twice for the same crime. You can be tried as many times as necessary for the same offence.

Maybe the EU is trying to take M$ down a peg or two, but not only does M$ control the OS market, they also control what hardware becames widely used to some extent, and more importantly they control when people have to upgrade their hardware. This is the power afforded to them by holding a monopoly.
Authorites were not able to prevent M$ from getting their monopoly, (Whereas they have succeeded in preventing the rise of many others in other industries) and are merely attempting to ensure that they don't use their OS monopoly to set up another one on software apps. Or anything else.

The only other company I can think of that has a monopoly anywhere near M$, is DeBeers. They've had theirs a long time. Lets hope the same is not true of M$.


The good news is that the reults of both cases have/will allow others to bring lawsuits against them. They already paid out $2Bn.....

http://www.computerworld.com/govern...sues/story/0,10801,91363,00.html?nas=OS-91363

 

[Trimix]

Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!

Stella, that was my attempt at sarcasm ROFL
Please read my message again

 

[digitalbiker]

Analogies are not analogous

Imagine if a one company had control of 90% of the Car or Air travel or Oil business. How rich and powerful would they be? Or one corp supplying 90% of the worlds electricity? Scary thoughts, when you see how M$ operate....

There is more to the definition of a monopoly than just market share. In all of the above examples, these are true monopolies because they limit choice. These are all distribution infrastructure issues and they completely limit choice in certain geographic areas.

For example: a person would not be able to choose a different power company if in their area only one was available. Therefore unregulated, the power company could dictate any price for electricity and all users if they wanted electricity would have to pay the price. No alternative!

In Microsoft's case they may have a 90 percent market share but users are definitely not limited in choice. In the case of Microsoft, people choose their product. However, anyone (regardless of geographic location) could choose an Apple product to do the exact same thing. Or they could even buy an x86 machine and install linux for free. What I don't get is where is Microsoft limiting choice?

Where the US courts did find fault with Microsoft was in their use of illegal business practices whereby they used their market position to coerce hardware venders to distribute only windows based software pre-installed on their hardware or they weren't going to allow the vender to distribute any oem versions of the windows OS. This was illegal and was stopped!

 

[analogkid]

I guess the fact that IBM dumped CPM and went solely with MS-DOS as the OS for the original PC had nothing to do with it, right? Of course, the fact that Billy Boy's parents were friends with executives at the highest level of IBM at the time all this happened didn't come into play either, right? This is the foundation on which their "aggressive business plan" was built. We should all be so lucky... I mean privileged (as in the privileged few).

A lot of people here dont realise exactly what MS's business model is.
They have put more programmers out of work than file sharing ever did.
They are like a tax on technology.
Bill never programmed code for MS-DOS he used a little capital and questionable morals along with circumstancial contacts to destroy any competition. MS is frankly, mainly built off the bones of its victims
Two kids- MS-DOS
Apple-Windows

something went wrong though... apply wouldnt die, we didnt let them kill it, even when Jobs lost the company. Think what you will of jobs, he's no bill gates...
wow, just think if the government had paid those two kids the couple thousand for the MS-DOS software, and then ripped apple off of the Xerox OS work, they would have saved a trillion dollars to the economy.

 

[Foocha]

In the case of Microsoft, people choose their product. However, anyone (regardless of geographic location) could choose an Apple product to do the exact same thing.

This is not strictly true - there are many situations where one has no alternative but to use a Microsoft product.

For example:

Many Microsoft Office documents cannot be opened and edited in competitor packages.

Some Server functionality for Windows clients only works on Windows Server.

Most companies have made such a substantial investement in Windows that the costs, risks and hassle of migration are such that it is effectively impossible - they are "locked in" to Windows.

 

[Mac User]

No Big Diff

Those of you hoping the EU ruling will really change things are not being realistic. Even if, after SEVERAL years of appeals, this is implemented, what computer hardware company in its right mind will want to pay the same price to M$ for Windows without WMP? Who wants to receive LESS for the same amount? (That's right, the ruling does not require M$ to charge less for the stripped version.) The fine is miniscule in the larger scheme of things, as others have mentioned. But all of this is OK by me, since I would rather have Apple gain share again because consumers/business/government CHOOSE to buy Apple more computers rather than because the EU (or any other govt.) decides to get involved. Apple CAN win this battle on the playing field, without any help from the umpires.

 

[j_maddison]

why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.

Sorry but ive never seen an eMac cost $2000

 

[digitalbiker]

This is not strictly true - there are many situations where one has no alternative but to use a Microsoft product.

I agree that there are a few times when you may be required to use a Microsoft product but most of the time this is not due to a market situation such as supply & demand.

The examples you sited were both situations where office politics or corporate IT strategy required you to use Microsoft, not because there wasn't a good alternative choice.

I think that today the smart business has become aware of the problem of having all your eggs in one software giant's basket. As a result more and more business today are opting for open source or open architecture solutions ie: linux servers, xml documents, sql friendly databases, OpenGl graphics, etc. So that their future is not limited or dictated by the direction that Microsoft chooses.

The EU is no exception. Open solutions are the future! Apple knows it. Linux groups know it. Business knows it. Even Microsoft knows it, but they don't like it!

 

[Naimfan]

Even if, after SEVERAL years of appeals...

But MS almost certainly won't be given the several years of appeals--the decision is NOT automatically stayed under EU law. It is up to the court whether or not to stay the order, and the lawyers I've talked to don't think the court will stay the order pending the appeal.

Best,

Bob

 

[firedrill]

EU fines

Mr Monti, an italian politician, on behalf of European Union has inflicted that record fine to microshaft;
themore italian ministers in december 2003 put microsoft systems outlaw for public administration, police, government, and education because of its 'close-source', 'anti-standards' and 'spy-ware', as well for its (high)costs and 'no-performances' features.
So I can proudly say: in Italy we're on the right way to be the Bill Gates' Nemesis ! Maybe a real nightmare ? I wait for the first Apple Store in Italy.... we deserve it !

 

[amyhre]

Yes, some companies seem to be locked in to Microsoft. The government is especially bad, but they resist change anyway. It's kinda like how America will probably never go metric, too much hassle. On a side note, Japan is leveling it's guns at Microsoft as well. More of the illegal business practices, Microsoft forcing companies to give up proprietary secrets so they can have Microsoft products running on them. What bastards! However, some of these Asian governments are getting fed up and are switching to Linux. They'd rather not take the MS shaft anymore. The Chinese government has already written a version of Linux called Red Flag for their own use. Maybe Asians really are just more intelligent.

 

[windowsblowsass]

Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.

BECAUSE THEIR INTERNATIONAL COM ANIES OPERATING IN DIFFERENT NATIONS WHERE ONE COUNTRYS RULING DOESNT APPLY THEIR NOT TECHNICALLY AMERICAN COMPANYS THEY OPERATE IN MULTIPLE NATIONS
edit sorry about thecaps didnt see the little green light

 

[tychay]

hey guys, i'm a little confused on why they have to reveal there code and what the point of that is?

is it so other operating systems can copy what windows is doing?

is os x code available? not to knowledgeable on this so i was curious

The reason is because Microsoft uses undocumented application programming interfaces to maintain their monopoly. When Microsoft enters into a nascent market, they use bundling with the monopoly product (in this case Windows, but it could be Office) to create vertical foreclosure ("lock in"). This new app interoperates with the monopoly product using undocumented and unavailable protocols that stifle competition.

Note that bundling is a legal tactic for non-monopolists. For instance, there is nothing keeping Apple from bundling QuickTime with Mac OS because Mac OS is not a monopoly.

The goal is to level the playing field in the applications market. A nice side effect would have been to level the playing field for other operating systems (like the Mac or Linux) to interoperate with Windows.

Unfortunately, EU gave license for Microsoft to levy a royalty on this stuff so effectively, Mac and Linux are closed out. The Linux people need royalty-free information, and Apple leverages Linux projects like Samba to maintain their compatibility.

It makes sense that the EU penalty was harsher because EU anti-trust regulations seems to center around keeping healthy competition while US law requires proving "harm to the consumer". I believe a fine levied against another EU company earlier this year was almost as high as the Microsoft one so it seems very reasonable and perhaps a little light.

Unfortunately, this will just be taken by some sectors as EU abusing a US company and other assorted wrapping around in the (U.S.) flag.

Much of the code for OSX is available through Darwin which I believe is GPL-compatible open-source license (or very nearly). Much of the code on top of that is open-sourced because Apple uses existing open-source projects: kHTML (for Safari), Apache, gcc/gdb (for XCode) etc.

However, Apple does not open source the graphic user interface of the operating system or the GUI parts of applications such as Safari. Nor do they open source their commercial software (iLife, etc.)

I hope this helps,

terry