Login:
Password:

EU Threatens Microsoft with Daily Fines

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 22, 2005, 11:09 AM

The European Commission on Thursday threatened to hit Microsoft with a 2 million euro daily fine for refusing to open Windows to third parties. Microsoft criticized the announcement by saying the EU doesn't understand the difference between opening source code and APIs.

In March 2004, the EU ordered that Microsoft give competitors access to certain Windows networking protocols, which "would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers." The demand was in addition to a 497 million-euro fine and a requirement that Microsoft strip Media Player from Windows XP.

The Redmond company has fought the request from the start, saying any public release of its source code has "far-reaching implications for the protection of our intellectual property rights around the world." Microsoft appealed the ruling in August and asked for support from other tech companies in November.

But last December, the European Court of First Instance rejected an appeal to suspend all of the antitrust sanctions, saying Microsoft faced a daily fine if it did not comply by December 15, 2005. Since then, a Monitoring Trustee has been tracking the company's progress.

"I have given Microsoft every opportunity to comply with its obligations. However, I have been left with no alternative other than to proceed via the formal route to ensure Microsoft's compliance," EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement.

In a response early Thursday, Microsoft called the EU's Statement of Objection "unjustified," and claims, "the Commission confuses disclosure of the source code with disclosure of the internals."

"Of particular concern is the Commission's latest demand that the internal workings of Windows be documented and licensed, which can open the door to the production of clones of parts of the Windows operating system," Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement.

Smith also attacked the Monitoring Trustee, saying he did not take into consideration revised documentation provided by the company. "The Commission has issued this Statement regarding technical documentation we submitted last week, even though by its own admission neither it nor the Trustee have even read or reviewed these new documents."

"We think it would have been reasonable for the Commission and the Trustee at least to read and review these new documents before criticizing them as being insufficient," Smith added. Microsoft says it will contest the EU's decision to impose fines and ask for a full Oral Hearing on the issues.

Indicating Redmond's frustration, Smith noted that, "In total, we have now responded to more than 100 requests from the Commission. We continue working quickly to meet the Commission's new and changing demands. Yet every time we make a change, we find that the Commission moves the goal post and demands another change."

But Microsoft's appeal and request for an Oral Hearing won't delay the levying of fines against the company. It has until January 25 to respond and prove it is in compliance with the ruling, says EU spokesman Jonathan Todd.

"The deadline is five weeks. If they don't comply, they'll have to pay the fine every day," Todd told a news conference.

Add a Comment (247 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By I'm Batman

posted Oct 4, 2006 - 2:28 AM

Wow... I'm deeply disappointed in the EU.

Score: 0

By Portal3

posted Jul 12, 2006 - 9:53 PM

Liken source code to a recipe for baking bread...
The Cook (Microsoft) puts some flour, yeast, water and ant-poison on the table in four bowls. A little kid (Your Average Software Developer) walks into the kitchen wanting some bread but finds that they can't have any of the baked bread because the Cook wants to sell it at the market. The Cook decides to go have a nap (extremely tired after cooking so much, and content with what they've made) so the kid gets the left over ingredients and makes some bread. The kid eats the bread and dies. The Police (EU) are eventually notified and the Cook (Microsoft) is held responsible. For practical reasons, ant-poison was in the vicinity of the other ingredients. Perhaps the Cook should've left a big sign or MSDS next to the bowl of ant-poison (that's what the EU wants them to do). Then again, if the kid (Your Average Software Developer) was infact and adult (A Professional Software Developer) then maybe they'd have enough common sense to see what the good ingredients are on the table so as to get the job done. If an adult wants to come in and do the job of the Cook, they shouldn't expect the Cook to teach them how to steal their job. If a kid wants to do the job of the Cook, you end up with the Police knocking on your door asking you to make a book "Windows Source-Code For Dummies".

Should Microsoft be responsible for other developers actions or inactions? Should Microsoft explain the complexity of its source code when the capacity of a developer/hacker to reverse engineer doesn't equate to a Microsoft Developer's ability to write such code? The EU seems to think so.

Score: 0

By aldenz

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 1:29 PM

i appreciate european efforts all the coutries should join in the race and kill microsoft.there must be a general body and standards to build an operating system.but now with microsoft nobody can be able to create an os because of hardware support.if this continues microsoft will threaten even the goverment of the country.as it is ruling the computer world.as of now microsoft software development is the world development.if microsoft does not support blue tooth blue tooth will ruin.if a printer is introduced without microsoft he cant able to sell it.

Score: 0

By lordnaastik

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 11:07 AM

american site filled with american ppl. u never grow out of ur superiority complex and disregard of millions of non-americans in this world.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 12:51 PM

No government should be able to tell a for-profit software company to hand over their source-code. Period.

It has nothing to do with international relations or a "superiority complex."

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 5:42 PM

> No government should be able to tell a for-profit
> software company to hand over their source-code. Period.

Both US and EU governments can and in fact are obliged under their anti-trust laws to protect consumers from a convicted monopoly abuser.

Microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser both in US and EU. The difference is that EU is actually trying to do something about it.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 1:58 AM

EU is planning for the next world war - that's all. They want no dependency on American technology. Only God knows how many security holes the NSA has listed for WinXP in their little (humangeous?) black book to allow them total control over the world's citizens.

Basically what I'm saying is the EU has already decided their goal is open source OS (+OOffice naturally) for their subjects - within 10 years.

The news that will "shock" the world (and make us Americans jump on our hind legs) is yet to come - that Windows Vista will not be allowed to be sold in the EU "due to lack of compliance with EU anti-monopoly requirements" as they'll say.

Then again, MS might do the right thing and fully-comply with whatever they're requested, with strategic assistance from the NSA (who will be contacting them shortly).

After all, this is, bottom line, clearly a national security issue.

Score: 0

By nillinu

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 12:13 PM

Let them declair war it will do us all a favor! We all want war on the EU just do not want to declair it! LET THEM PLEASE! SO THEY CAN LOOSE SOONER!

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Jun 27, 2006 - 6:10 PM

You're a bit of a d1ck, aren't you.

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 4:59 PM

You guys do know that in MS there is never a shortage of Toilet paper right? I mean these guys get to read all these BS lawsuits and threats, and when they are done reading they wipe and drain em down the toilet =)

Score: 0

By kia_akhlaghi

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 4:35 PM

**** Off you bas****s when you can't just distinguish the diffrence between API and being open source shut it up !
Microsoft has so extensible and powerfull plus low level APIs that is 1000000000 times better than being Open Source at least from a developer's view like me !
EU should go and find another way to prepare its budget or there's a better way so much better to shut it!
Poor Microsoft that has to deal with you dumbs let it be free bas****s and do its best. If you wanna improve Computer's world and speed up its evolution progress force Microsoft or Intel to release thier new technology's faster!
Force MS to release its WinFS faster or force it to improve its UI in Vista! not to fight with MS just with what is not your bussines and profession !
Force Intel to release its triple core CPU and beyond 9999999999999999 core CPUs with 1THz frequecy per Core it's the perfect way not these actions man!
Think a little more about what you're doing !

Score: 0

By petaflot

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 8:39 PM

kia_akhalghi, you have just no idea of how MS is totally uncapable of getting winFS to work. and unaware of the basic laws of physics and economy that prevent intel (or any other chip company) to produce what you're asking for

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:23 PM

I guess you missed the video of their live demo of WinFS that they posted on MSDN months ago...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 5:35 PM

Wow...holiday blues, eh?

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:09 PM

The EU is on crack.

What a bunch of retards.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:36 PM

Ok. I'm convinced. The sky *must* be falling.

Well said. =p

Score: 0

By eman8ions

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 11:15 AM

Anti-competition and Monopoly laws are in place to, among other good things, protect the worlds consumers from becoming owned by corporations (other than government). There should be more strict enforcement of these kinds of laws imo

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:50 PM

MS is claiming intellectual property for their software? On top of not wanting to disclose the code they've really written, they just don't want to show how much was stolen and plagiated from the open source community. Is that supposed to stay unpunnished and legal?

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:08 PM

So MS should open up their source code to the public?? What kind of retarted demand is that.

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:51 PM

MS is claiming intellectual property for their software? On top of not wanting to disclose the code they've really written, they just don't want to show how much was stolen and plagiated from the open source community.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:10 PM

Uhhh....what company that makes a profit off their software doesn't claim intellectual property? What company discloses it's code (open source excluded)?? Ohhh but MS should be different because....oh just because their MS and you seem to have no clue what you are talking about.

Score: 0

By Alexq

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 8:46 AM

> What company discloses it's code (open source excluded)?

Words of a true moron.

Any company disclosing it's source code would be called "open source" company.

Score: 0

By eman8ions

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:33 PM

Is MS a monopoly by any measure? Have they been found guilty of anti-competition? If so, who cares how retarded the demand is, they are on the wrong side of the law. Judging and sentencing is justified.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 1:17 PM

" Is MS a monopoly by any measure?"

A monopoly would mean you have no choice...do you have a choice in using windows or not? Some guy in europe tells you they're a monopoly and suddenly it must be true? Men can breast feed...must be true to you now too right?

"Have they been found guilty of anti-competition?"

Every single company out there has some anti-competitive practices...what is microsofts exactly? Giving you a free version of media player and internet explorer is anticompetitive?

"If so, who cares how retarded the demand is"

Two wrongs don't make a right...if you punch me in the stomach I don't have the right to shoot you in the head. If your company can't compete against mine doesn't mean I have to give you all my companies secrets.

Giving out source code unwillingly to the entire world is not justified by any means. It's copyrighted code, MS owns it, and nobody should have a right to it. Giving out the code will just spawn a bunch of windows clones, yea that will be good for the market.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 8:43 AM

Microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser both in US and EU.

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:57 PM

> Giving you a free version of media player and internet explorer is anticompetitive?

it goes much further than this. MS deliberatly introduce "errors" when using standards (network protocols, hardware usage, etc) to force software developpers and (more important) hardware manufacturers to comply to MS's errors in order to get the "made for windows" label, and therefor have the slightest chance to sell their prodcuts and therefore survive.

users have no other choice than wait for hackers (NOT crackers) to waste precious time trying to reverse engineer hardware they have legally purchased and should be allowed to use they way the like on the system they like. binary codecs fall in the same category.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:09 PM

ah MS delibertly introduces errors and somehow forces computers to not be usable unless they're hacked...I see.

Stop reading consiperacy theory books, and say that again when you get out of HS.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 1:19 PM

"I don't have the right to shoot you in the head"

You do if you live in Florida, and you can prove that by punching you in the stomach he was trying to kill you.

LOL ;-)

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 2:03 PM

It's true! I used to live in Sunny fla! :)

Score: 0

By srotman

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:20 AM

i really think a lot of people here are either crazy (if you support the EU wanting MS to open up their code) or dont understand the issue (think EU just wants MS to open code to competitors for their own irrational reasons). really the only reason the EU is stirring up this mess is because MS implements WMP and IE into windows and DOESNT GIVE THE USER THE OPTION NOT TO INSTALL THEM DURING WINDOWS INSTALL!!! this means by default WMP and IE are chosen for media files and web browsing. this is unfair to competitors because they already have the lower hand in the equation. the EU is right in asking MS to deal with this issue, but opening the code to WMP and IE for competitors is NOT A SOLLUTION! the proper way to deal with this is to fine MS if they dont comply in ASKING THE USER during a windows installation if he/she wants to install WMP and IE or not. that way the user HAS A CHOICE before ever even having WMP or IE on their computer in the first place. THEN the user can decide afterwards to go solely with a 3rd party media player and browser OR to use MS's programs. this is the ONLY problem being dealt with by the EU and the US. so rant all you want about the open source demand. I agree that's insane! but understand at least how they got mad at MS in the first place, and then just point and laugh at the idiots for taking the whole conflict out of proportion and making insane demands.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 11:16 AM

Well, for one M$ already took WMP out of windows in Europe. I think Windows in Europe has been stripped down majiorly in europe, pretty much all it has is IE. But you gotta think Strotman, Are the Europeans so freakin' stupid that they think that the HAVE to use WMP and IE? here on my work computer, I have IE, WMP, Wordpad, blah blah blah, You know what? I use, Firefox, Winamp, and Microsoft word! Why? because I'm smart enough to know I have a choice. I mean, Microsoft offers those components with windows to make the consumers life easier. I know some people who LOVE IE and WMP, and would use nothing else, so this means they would have to go and download them, rather than them already conviently installed on their computer. But I DO understand the point at hand, but making their software open source is not the answer. I still think M$ needs to just not sell their software in europe since they have such a huge issue. I mean, read the posts here, most of the eurpean people that post on BN said they hate Microsoft, So why even bother sellingt he product there? Let them use Linux and Firefox and all the other free open source stuff, then they'll realise that it all SUX

And another thing, if Internet Explorer didn't come preloaded with windows, how the hell is the consumer gonna browse the internet to download Firefox? or Opera? or netscape?? LOL!

European Customer: "ohh, I decline to install IE, I'll just download firefox instead" *an hour goes by, XP is loaded and done* "ok let me go download firefox!"

Windows XP: "Hey idiot, you can't browse the web cuz you don't have a browser!!!!"

European Customer: "eh...oops..."

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:11 PM

"Well, for one M$ already took WMP out of windows in Europe"

LOL...and from what I hear the WMPless version of windows is pretty unpopular in EU...yea, the EU is doing what's in the "best interest of the public"...yea, sure you are.

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:03 PM

obviously. It keeps on crashing for no reason. And I know this for I live in Europe.

As for the IE and WMP, it cannot even be uninstalled for this exact reason. Windows DOES NOT WORK without these components, which compromise greatly the users private life and security.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:12 PM

Oh you live in Europe...no wonder your opinions are so biased and skewed...I hope your not a representative of what the educational system in Europe is like...although that would explain alot of EU's thinking.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:24 PM

And you apparently live in America, which explains *your* bias.

Everyone here is biased just by the very nature of what is going on. Pulling the "bias" card doesn't go very far.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 2:29 PM

My bias of what? I have no bias...if MS was in Europe and the US Gov't decided to force them to show the world their source code...I would be just as pissed at our gov't as I am at the EU.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 9:25 PM

"Windows DOES NOT WORK without these components, which compromise greatly the users private life and security."

If that's what the user thinks, then they should use a different OS. That's what we in the U.S. call a free market...

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 1:19 PM

lol no kidding

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 9:23 AM

Forget boycotting sony, Boycott the European commission!! This is BS! Why are they gonna take a companies profit away from them??? Hell with Europe! Hell with the french! Don't sell M$ Products in Europe! Let them suffer! "NO WINDOWS FOR YOU!"

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:52 AM

I am just trying to imagine how any of this works, the EU is not based in America but think they make demands like this and push around an American company? Not a pride thing, just how is that even work?

Microsoft programmed that operating system, it's theirs. Just like if I wrote a program and released it and if it became really popular I would not give out the code because that is just stupid.

That and I bet you that they really don't know the diff. between programming API's and real source code. I be will to go so far and say nobody on that entire EU pannel has ever written their own HELLO WORLD program.

The EU can shove off with the FCC, RIAA, and MPAA.

Score: 0

By Germany

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:58 AM

"the EU is not based in America but think they make demands like this and push around an American company?"
That's not right. In each European country Microsoft is an own company, e.g. Microsoft Germany GmbH etc. So they ARE able to do this because the law says Microsoft is an European company and sells it poducts in the EU.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 9:49 AM

I don't think that is what anyone is saying here at all. I think that the EU is making demands upon a company without regard.

Obviously, MS is there due to demand by the public for its products. MS complies and builds a factory there to sell. Now, only to have the EU decide on what that product will do and what MS must do to make others easier to destroy that product. MS already allows 3rd party programs on to their system. It is the source code they are after, not applications. If you don't want media player 10, then don't download it. At the same time, if photostory 10 requires it, it means you don't get photostory either. But you do have the choice to download or install any other program and use it.

The EU keeps changing their minds and demands and has even gone as far as to state they have not read the new documentation given by MS. What are they after then?

MS has made many changes to their operating system since the beginning and still others want more. They are not a monopoly, you still have choices. It is not MS's fault you don't like the choices, but that is what you get.

Take it or leave it. I wish they could pull out of Europe, but that would even be more silly than the demands placed upon them. They are willing to make concessions, but the EU is not budging. I see that they are after something else.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:39 AM

"They are not a monopoly"

Where is the evidence to support that statement?

3 different governments in 3 different parts of the world disagree.

What makes you right and them wrong?

Score: 0

By athome

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 1:01 AM

I can still buy a pc today and not have an OS installed on it. I then can purchase one and install it as I wish. Where is the Monopoly in that? I can even purchase many software titles or download them free from the Internet and install them at will. But with other OS's, I have to search for specific software and hope to find a tech that will service it if I have trouble.

In stores, you can see machines side by side with Mac and Windows, but those of Windows are being bought more often then Mac. The reason for this is due to the fact that if you installed a Linux OS onto an EMachine or HP, it would sit on the shelve for months, maybe years and not be purchased by anyone. Is this Microsoft's fault? NO! It is what the customer wants, and for this Best Buy would be silly in purchasing more than one machine with such configuration as not to go broke.

No one else is developing Operating Systems that are being bought. Though it works to the advantage of MS that such is happening, it is not by them pushing them off the shelves.

Even to this day, Linux does not have a OS that is suitable for the common user. This is not the fault of Microsoft, but of Linux. Same for Mac. Mac is more expensive and when they sit side by side on the shelve and you are told that you have to learn something new, people shrill and move to the OS they are familiar with. In time this will slowly change as more and more options are offered, but again, not the fault of MS.

I could care less what the EU or Korea and such complain about. If they are so dead against MS being a monopoly, then why even let them into their country in the first place. What tactics are being used there? Each could block MS anytime they want, but they will not do that because of the demand for their products.(And the money they get from them) Talk about calling the kettle black.

If MS was going to PC Manufacturers and forcing them to place Windows onto their machines and not allowing any other OS to be installed or any other peice of software, then you would be right in assuming they are a monopoly.

I don't know you from the next guy, but just because it is in print, does not make it so. Think for yourself. It is easy to see why some think that they are monopoly, but it is only due to the small base of OS's offered, not by their design.(Though every company does have a dark side, and not to say that some things they have done were illegal)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 8:46 AM

These are all your opinions, which don't change the facts. :-)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 11:07 AM

Me and you agree on this point, fewt. MS is definately a monopoly. That's probably the ONLY thing me and you agree about though :)

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 11:24 AM

I doubt it's the only thing. It's probably the only thing you'd admit to though. :-P haha

Seriously, in my opinion they are doing a great job in every area except interoperability. I think the EU is asking too much to demand source code, however I'm not so sure that they are asking for source code.

"Smith complained in a statement that the Commission demand that internal workings of the Windows operating system be documented and licenced to rival server makers "can open the door to the production of clones of parts of the Windows."

"The Commission confuses disclosure of the source code with disclosure of the internals and insists that it will fine the company if it fails to address this," he said.

He added that the Commission had assured an EU court last year that its decision did aim to force Microsoft to disclose the internal working of the Windows."

- http://today.reuters.com...CROSOFT-EU-REACTION.xml

I think it's perfectly acceptable to force them to a point where it's easy for their competition to be able to interoperate seamlessly. Microsoft is right that source code isn't required, however the commission is probably also right that Microsoft hasn't done enough to comply.

Score: 0

By Germany

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:48 AM

The problem is that the EU is too much involved in things mormally the companies are deciding on their own. An example: if two companies want a fusion, they have to ask the EU if it is OK.

Score: 0

By russshoe

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 6:22 AM

Microsoft should tell them to shove it

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:16 PM

.. and the EU could then make MS products illegal, to massively support open source software. The whole US would soon be wiped off the "computer" face of the earth because you retarded idiots would still be using an inadequate OS. Since most of Asia is much in favor of Linux and UNIXes, it wouldn't take long before US could not export one single piece of hard or software and become the laughing stock of the planet.

please, no PLEASE! do so. Ruin what's left of your economy, exagerated national pride and political bulls*** ; rot where you're sitting on your fat asses and leave the world in peace. We'll all be better off after that, we don't need and don't want your help. in other words, f*** off.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 10:51 PM

Someone hit a nerve?

Score: 0

By Velocition

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 7:40 AM

lol, thats badass

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 3:33 AM

Personally, I don't think the EU has any right to do this sort of thing. I think if they want to make an organizational body to deal with software companies and such, then do so, but till then, stay out of it. MS should pull products from the U.K until they stop this kind of crap.

Score: 0

By zhensem

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:07 AM

"MS should pull products from the U.K until they stop this kind of crap."

Why are you picking on the UK?

News flash, dumba**, the EU consists of more than just the UK. It's actually made up of 25 European countries with more to join later.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 3:23 AM

"Why are you picking on the UK?

News flash, dumba**, the EU consists of more than just the UK. It's actually made up of 25 European countries with more to join later."

OK, oh smart one, the UK and the rest of the 24 (and soon to be more) other anal retentive dumba**, can't make an important decision to save their own countries a** countries that make up this wonderful and useful organization.
And I chose the U.K because they generally seem to have the 'oomph' in voice, especially with this case, when it comes to any kind of meeting over the matter.
They couldn't get 'control' of the net so now they're making American companies miserable. First MS, I then predict Dell, Gateway, anything on the map. You'll see.

As I said before, if they need to, then put together an organization to oversee software policies etc. Make that their job. Lately they've been just so....I dunno, like mosquitos.

And for the record, MS wouldn't lose any real money from pulling out because people would simply buy the product online somehow, companies would still buy server products, etc. Local Tech. Outlets would like import U.S versions anyway.
It'd be slightly more difficult and a tad more expensive, yes, but hey, you reap what you sow right? And it's not like they wouldn't deserve it. They're just never satisfied, and at this point it seems like they're more interested in extorting money from MS in any way they can than doing the community any good whatsoever.
It's really comparative to the RIAA, where nowadays they seem more interested in sueing first, correcting the problem later.

Score: 0

By zhensem

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 9:34 PM

"OK, oh smart one, the UK and the rest of the 24 (and soon to be more) other anal retentive dumba**, can't make an important decision to save their own countries a** countries that make up this wonderful and useful organization."

I'm sorry, there are so many grammatical mistakes in that I don't actually understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make sense.

"And I chose the U.K because they generally seem to have the 'oomph' in voice, especially with this case, when it comes to any kind of meeting over the matter.
They couldn't get 'control' of the net so now they're making American companies miserable. First MS, I then predict Dell, Gateway, anything on the map. You'll see."

The UK doesn't want control of the net it's just we see it a bit unfair that the US should control it. Secondly, the decision in this matter wasn't made by the UK it was made by the EU Commission. At the end of the day ordinary people didn't have any say in this so let's not go and start picking on the UK, thank you.

MS is being monopolistic and anti-competitive, or so the EU Commission says, other companies are not being punished by fines but as soon as they do become like MS then I'm sure they will be fined to until then it's just MS. However as much as I disagree with EU Commission's decision I don't think they're out to get American companies.

"And for the record, MS wouldn't lose any real money from pulling out because people would simply buy the product online somehow, companies would still buy server products, etc. Local Tech. Outlets would like import U.S versions anyway."

Very educated indeed. I think you may find that MS would lose A LOT if they pulled out of Europe.

Thanks for reading, do have a Happy Xmas.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 10:42 PM

Is it just me or is the EU very much like the RIAA, except they "represent" a group of countries instead of record companies.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 2:24 AM

It's just you. :-)

EU government can be real pain in the back, but in this case they are on the right side.

Microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser both in US and EU. The difference is that EU is actually trying to do something about it.

Score: 0

By eman8ions

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 12:35 PM

precisely

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 10:36 PM

Well if Microsoft wants to sell their product in other countries, and make millions in profit from it, then they have no choice but to follow the laws of that country. I don't think its going to kill Microsoft to give in to these demands.

Microsoft is so used to bullying everyone else around, its about time they get the same dished back at them.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 10:28 PM

I love Linux, I am a fanboy to a limited extent, but this seems a bit asinine. Microsoft included the thing that's like "Set Program Defaults and... ???" program to set the default program and toggle visibility of the program. Come on, folks... what are we doing with an ultimate blessing of "free will?" This capability says that we have the choice to not use that program!

In the EXTREME worst-case scenario, if this were to succed, then they could go after Linux distributions (Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, etc.) under anti-competition laws for bundling and setting to default OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Gaim, etc.

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 9:33 PM

they have no right to tell microsoft they have to open their source to COMPETITORS! this is ridiculous, outrageous and just plain stupid. if you don't like media player, DON'T USE IT! microsoft doesn't have to bow to anyone, especially not a foreign power! we have laws protecting intellectual property! who do they think they are trying to break those laws. they have totally lost their minds, this is just another ploy by them to get money. THEY are the ones that should be fined daily for this. i'm with MS on this one.

Score: 0

By zhensem

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:12 AM

"microsoft doesn't have to bow to anyone, especially not a foreign power!"

Last time I checked Microsoft Ltd was registered here in the United Kingdom. That makes Microsoft Ltd a British firm. It may be a subsidiary of Microsoft Corp. which is in US but Microsoft Ltd is based in the UK and therefore has to abide by our laws and regulations so YES it DOES have to bow to 'foreign power'.

Score: 0

By Babylon2x

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 9:30 PM

I'm from Europe, and I just want to add to the many other comments here showing the disappointment at the EU's ruling. Like many others, I would like to see MS just pull from the market. Then the EU will realize they have been amazingly silly, and the world can go back to normal.

I dislike the EU a great, great deal. The rulings they have against MS are ridiculous, in my opinion. MS bundles WMP with Windows, and they did it because people wanted their OS to come with more than just a bare OS. They wanted to be able to play media without having to worry about downloading other stuff. It was more relevent when people had slower connections, but for those who don't know what they're doing with PCs, I see a benefit.

What with Vista? If MS have some kind of AntiSpyware built in, are the EU going to ask them to remove that too because that's anti-competitive? And why is it just about all PCs you buy have a 30 day trial of Symantec NAV installed with them. So I get my OS already messed up because of software someone else is enforcing on my computer?

I digress. Basically, I'd rather have MS bundling whatever they want with Windows. And I'd rather have MS doing what they want with their APIs, and their source code. I don't see why it all needs to be opened up. People have been creating applications for years that run fine on windows, and do lots of.. well, whatever. So obviously there's plenty of documentation out there.

Maybe the EU are just strapped for cash and fancy hitting the biggest target. They make me sick.

Score: 0

By Germany

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:00 AM

"What with Vista?"
I'm not sure, but I think I've read somewhere that Microsoft will bring out Windows Vista E, a special version for Europe. There's no WMP, no Anti-Spyware within.

Score: 0

By erickufrin

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 8:54 PM

This is rediculous! How the hell does the European Union think they have the authority to tell MS to open its internal source code!

USE THE DAMN APIs!!!!!

How do they think that this will improve the market?

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 7:49 PM

I guess they are doing this for reason, or not. I dont really care since its not in my hands, but as for Microsoft. I feel no pity. **** happens when you are running a monopoly, which not everyone likes.

Score: 0

By bbfc

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 7:48 PM

I'm from the UK and think the EU is totally out of order. The judging panel probably don't know anything about Source Codes and APIs.

Why should MS open up its code to its competitors, its their IP, nobody elses!

What about Apple - are the EU going to persue them. I doubt it!

I admire Microsoft for that they have done to the computer and the Internet, I wouldn't say i'm a total fan of them, but their products make the world go around!

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:25 PM

> but their products make the world go around!

that must be why over half of web servers run apache, and less than a quarter run IIS

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 7:58 PM

"but their products make the world go around!"

Exactly, and not everyone is so comfortable being in that position. Problem is, Microsoft got upper hand on the OS market and competition seems to be non-existing... that cant be good.

Score: 0

By Budgie29

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 6:53 PM

One way MS could get round the removal of Media player is to bundle other media players and give the user the option on install

I personally think that M$ should be made to strip out all apps and just make it basic like Windows 95 was back in the day. Then he/her could install the apps. Rather than it being forced apron us like it was from win98 onwards

Score: 0

By athome

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 9:30 AM

Nothing is forced. If you don't like it, don't use it. Are you using any peice of software now that you don't like? I bet not, because you know how to turn off that feature. It isn't hard or rocket science. It has been this way since Win98. Even if you don't know how, there are many Internet sites out there to help you do it.

As soon as MS does this, the commission is going to demand something else, and will continue to do so.

There are only 3 major players in the world of OS programs. Of these, MS has the largest customer base. Only because of their products, not because of their monopolistic tactics. It is primarily because they have listened to the wants of the customers and have incorporated them into their OS. Even giving alternative ways in which to configure their products so 3rd party vendors can be used. Many of these hacking into the system configurations for their own profit and mucking up the mix.

This is not to say that MS is perfect, but only a product of what the customer base has asked for and conducting business like all other companies in the field. Do we forget about IBM, INTEL, Mac, and Zerox?

How about the EU going after MS on XB0x360 or Sony Playstation for not allowing other games to be played on them?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:35 AM

"not because of their monopolistic tactics."

Incorrect. The US, Korea, and the EU have all ruled them a monopoly, and that they gained their monopoly illegally.

Your opinion may be that they didn't get their due to their monopoly however the facts show that they did.

Score: 0

By menting

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 7:18 PM

by including other media players you mean including competitors' software? how would you like it if you made a piece of sofware but was told you need to include your arch enemy's stuff on it too? probably won't think that's appropriate right? also, what would determine what "other" media players go on it? all of them? that'll be like 100+ of them. Deciding what to include should be the responsibility of the company/person installing the software, so all MS should do is to allow you to uninstall the stuff you dont want.
windows 95 back in the day had at least IE installed by default. I doubt most ppl would be able to go online and install other stuff without a default browser.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 7:35 PM

No it didn't, IE came on the IE cd in the box with Windows 95 and it was only with Windows 95B. At that time IE was still an off the shelf product that cost approx $40.

As for not being able to go online, most ISPs bundled their dialer software with a web browser making it pretty easy to get online.

Score: 0

By menting

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 8:04 PM

ok. i'll give you the 95 not bundled with IE (it was so long ago that i can't remember :D)

but for ISPs bundling their software with a browser..you can apply the same logic for the ISP's software as well that was used for MS. does the ISP software have to come with all possible browsers? or can they just choose one of their own choice? it's all the same result. whoever(company) makes the package has their own free will to include what's in it. if you dont like it, then it's your own freedom to switch to another one.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 8:55 AM

No, Windows95 came in diffrent versions.

95A, 95B, and 95C.

Version A came out on 13 floppies and did not have IE to save space on the floppies. Any CD version of the OS had IE with it. 95C even had a diffrent boot logo that said IE was bundled with it.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:37 AM

95A came as both a CD and a floppy set as did 95B. I believe that the original release of 95 (pre A) came only on floppy. 95C only came on CD.

I recall the company I worked for at the time purchased 95B on floppy by mistake and we had ~38 floppies to install with, yeah that didn't happen (sent them all back un-opened).

Score: 0

By mfarmilo

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 6:42 PM

Nice to see the EU doing something right for a change. Also nice that so far they don't show any signs of doing what the US DOJ did - finding Microsoft guilty of something, then rewarding them for it instead of punishing them.

Score: 0

By db90h

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 5:22 PM

So many of you didn't seem to read this article. They are merely asking for certain protocols and data types to be documented so that products can be created that interoperate with Windows, or replace certain components of Windows. The source code they are requesting, if any, is merely to demonstrate how the protocols and/or formats are used so that the documentation can be validated. They aren't saying, "give us all your source code". They aren't 'killing' Microsoft or stealing their IP.

A free market must have restraints placed upon it to ensure a competitive market-place exists.

Particularly scary is if Microsoft's patents on various protocols, data types, and file formats were enforcable. Then software developers couldn't achieve interoperability with Microsoft's software without paying licensing fees.

Governments should do what is necessary to make sure free markets function in the interest of the consumer. If it weren't for the U.S. government breaking up various monopolies over the years (i.e. at&t/bell), then we'd all be paying much higher phone bills.

Many markets are forced to allow for competition to interoperate.

This ultra-capitalist position many of you are taking doesn't work any better than an ultra-communist position. In the end, some reasonable combination of capitalism and socialism is the best for THE PEOPLE.

It is amusing to hear you argue against your own good. I wonder if some of you aren't being paid to post such things.

Score: 0

By petaflot

posted Dec 23, 2005 - 9:30 PM

thank you

> It is amusing to hear you argue against your own good. I wonder if some of you aren't being paid to post such things.

hehe, me too

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 10:28 AM

"A free market must have restraints placed upon it to ensure a competitive market-place exists."

Restraining a "free market"? Doesn't sound so free to me. Why don't we just force every industry to have competitors that control at most 50% of the market? Oh, that's right, because it's socialism!

It sounds great on paper--in reality it simply doesn't work. Really...how have you, or any other consumer benifited from the lawsuits against MS?

Remember MS owns the desktop market. HURTING THEM HURTS THE MARKET. This does not benifit consumers one bit.

"This ultra-capitalist position many of you are taking doesn't work any better than an ultra-communist position. In the end, some reasonable combination of capitalism and socialism is the best for THE PEOPLE."

This is sadley the belief of many Americans, especially liberals, today. Equal benifits, prices, etc., only causes less profit, because people lose their will to work, and the people who do work get the same as the lazy ba$tards. This already happens with "government" housing in my opinion. Let me give an example.

Three major hurricanes this season: Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. I live in Port Arthur, Texas, which was right in the middle of Rita. Still I find that every store etc. still wants to give to Katrina victims. Don't get me wrong--Katrina was bad, worse than Rita--but nobody seems to understand that just because we had an IQ above our waistline and actually decided to evacuate doesn't mean we weren't affected.

Still today I see nothing but ads for the poor Katrina victims and such. Listen, I DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY, don't misunderstand. I'm pointing out that because *MANY* (not all) Katrina victims were a buncha b****in a$$holes our government and our people are spending an unprecedented amount of money on them. Money doesn't grow out of people's a$$...Wilma and Rita victims got the short end of the stick. FEMA can't afford to do anything, insurance companies are millions of dollars in debt, yet we spent all of the money on the precious Katrina victims. AND MOST OF THE MONEY WILL BE GOING TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN MAKE THEIR OWN MONEY, because they think their government owns them. Wakeup people! Government BY THE PEOPLE, for the people. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!

Okay I got a little off topic...my point was blurred too...but to me we need less government, not more.

Score: 0

By nillinu

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 12:10 PM

government needs to control minimum wage, saftey issues, minimum working age, monopolies, max hours aloud to work, price fixing i mean think of a world without these things. Youd still be working for your 10 cents at the factory. Government regulations on the economy and cooperations are necessary altough we must maintain a strict limit on this not to let the government control the economy and control it to how they want it. There is a big difference between regulation and control

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 23, 2005 - 10:50 AM

I suspected you were from texas. (joke) :-P

I agree the katrina thing is pretty pathetic, especially the begging on TV for someone to give people hand outs when they should have evacuated. In my opinion they shouldn't rebuild New Orleans at all, because it's just going to happen all over again but I digress.

I've been through 4 hurricanes in the last 2 years, so I don't feel sorry for them for knowing a cat 5 hurricane was coming and them staying in a city that's 10 feet below sea level. It just doesn't get any dumber than that.

You can't have a free market without controls, that's not capitalism it's ANARCHY. There is nothing liberal about putting controls on a free market, without them every company could become the next enron or worldcom. It's not about the control, it's about making sure companies act responsibily.

Score: 0

By nillinu

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 12:05 PM

I agree with you on this one :) , although now that they are stuck in this situation i would rather them collect donations than use american taxes purely.

Score: 0

By Germany

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 4:27 PM

I don't understand the EU: they want to keep the competition. Competition exists when the consumer can decide between VARIOUS products. But if they want MS to open their codes or sources, other companies can copy it. So the EU is stepping back in time... That's European bureaucracy...

Score: 0

By menting

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 4:23 PM

here's a thought to EU:
why not just make every software open source, or force every company to open every source code up, so everyone can improve on it. Theoretically it will work great right? since everyone would benefit from it.
Wow, that sounds just like Communism, works great in theory, but sucks in real life.
LOL

Score: 0

By nillinu

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 4:27 PM

Exactly my point! Misrepresentation by one individuals agenda, blatant ideology of a communistic society! Sound likes EU has degressed itself into a futuristic dictatorship as depicted in the bible!

Score: 0

By Germany

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 4:10 PM

I'm from Europe (Germany) and please don't think that the European people agree with the EU commission! The Germans think the EU makes too many and too complicated laws like the Competition rights law. Why the hell does the EU commission want MS to delete WMP from WinXP? We have no problems with it... And if you don't like WMP, go and download another one...
Sometimes it seems to me that this commissioner Neele Kroes has a "personal anger" against MS so she wants MS to pay for... nothing that breaks an EU law!

Score: 0

By nillinu

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 4:23 PM

Why is it that your people are misrepresented? And their opinions are beat down by one mans agenda?

Score: 0

By Germany

posted Dec 22, 2005 - 4:32 PM

The EU often misrepresents the people. What do you thínk why the French and the Dutch voted against the European Constitution?

Score: 0

By nillinu

edited Dec 22, 2005 - 4:44 PM

Reminds me of BIG BROTHER, some high authority way up there that no one relates to or knows about, that just does what they want. This will lead to either a complete Big Brother like society or a revolution to where the EU is overthrown.Which is highly unlikely to have a revolution from internal sources in this day an age, because you can so easily prevent this from your own people with modern technology. So for this to happen their would have to be an Iraqi like revolution, with support of an outside nation like the US. (LET THE US DECLARE WAR ON THE EU AND FREE THEM FROM THEIR DICTATORSHIP!) J/k but this is an statement many americans wish would happen

Score: 0

By Maxwolf <