RSSMicrosoft Appeals Second EU Fine
By Ed Oswald | Published October 3, 2006, 10:39 AM
As expected, Microsoft said Tuesday it has appealed a July fine by the European Commission with the Court of First Instance, the European Union's second highest court. It accuses the EC of prolonging the case while the Redmond company attempted to comply with the ruling.
Microsoft vowed to appeal after the EC handed down the 280.5 million euro fine on July 12. Before that ruling, he regulatory body had never fined a company before for failure to comply with an earlier order.
"When you consider Microsoft's massive efforts to comply with this ruling, and the fact that more than a dozen companies are already using similar documentation provided in the U.S. to ship actual products, we do not believe this fine is justified," the company said at the time.
The appeal asks the court to rule whether or not the Commission was correct in asserting that Microsoft had failed to provide adequate technical documentation by the EU's deadline. It also called the additional fine unfair, and blasted the EC for being vague as to what it was requesting.
Microsoft has already appealed the landmark 2004 antitrust decision against it with the Court of First Instance. A ruling in that case is not expected until next year, however.
Here the key to become a good company again for Microsoft:
DEBUNDLING
Yes you heard it. As long as microsoft makes *ok* programs that add functionality to its OS which is not required for it to run, MS will always look bad and make competitors in that field disgruntled.
Because MS has a monopoly on the OS markt MS *forces* the user to use what comes with their product. You may argue that everyone has still a choice to install his own stuff in addition, but you know companies or low skilled users won't do that.
Why not take out the IE, Media Player, Outlook, Windows Defender, Windows Messager etc. and offer them as free downloads for customers with legit product keys? That would help competition alot, because then at least companies who also offer their products for free would stand a chance.
If MS continues like this things like the "default search engine" in the Internet Explorer 7 and similar stuff will be battleground in courts in the future.
Score: 0
|The bundling is a problem, but the EU and everyone else would be glad to let Microsoft sell any application they want to provide, as long as every other developer has the same opportunity.
It is bad enough they make their add-on middle-ware products the default, but when they create secret API's and refuse to document protocols to cripple competing products then it is abuse of their operating systems monopoly.
Their insidious attempts to erase the line between applications and system software has failed they just haven't realized it yet.
Score: 0
|Did it ever occur to these third parties to make their own APIs?
Score: 0
|Because MS has a monopoly on the OS markt MS *forces* the user to use what comes with their product. You may argue that everyone has still a choice to install his own stuff in addition, but you know companies or low skilled users won't do that.
Won't, not can't. The laziness or lack of knowledge of the average computer user does not mean they are being forced into a certain course of action. If that were the case, I could accuse the manufacturer of my television of making me lazy by bundling a remote control with the television; and, actually, that argument would have more merit. As with most televisions made in the last 10-15 years, much of my television's features can only be accessed through the remote. Many original remotes cannot be fully replaced by third-party universal ones, should the third party manufacturers sue over this?
Score: 0
|I think it is important to remember that, without microsoft, there would be very little in the way of computers for average users, and that they wrote the program, so they should be able to say what is in it. it is not their problem to make available copyrighted material so that other companies can make profit from their work. I think the idea of suing microsoft for providing an easy to use computer interface, with a plethora of available tools, is rediculous. it is their operating system. if jo blow wants to use some obscure media player, let him write the operating system to run it. I wish people would quit trying to kill success, and start trying to make some of their own.
Score: 0
|That's not necessarily true, there were many easy to use options when Windows came about. I'm sure another company would be there today if Microsoft wasn't.
Score: 0
|Microsoft is A MONOPLY .
Score: 0
|1. That is a matter of opinion.
2. Your point?
Score: 0
|Yeah, so. Does that give countries the right to sue them for gay reasons?
Score: 0
|Wow, you said gay. When's your 12th birthday?
Score: 0
|The EU isn't a country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU
Score: 0
|Matter of opinion? Get a grip, i hardly know anyone who uses something else then windows xp. Not because its so good, but because all software is written for it.
Score: 0
|please enlighten me on how microsoft is a monopoly ?
Score: 0
|i hardly know anyone who uses something else then windows xp. Not because its so good, but because all software is written for it.
It could be said that it is "good" precisely because all the software availible for it. I still maintain one of MS's strengths has been providing developers the tools to make development easier. People talk of how java has made coding platform independant, Windows made coding hardware independant.
Don't forget that people also use it because it is what they know. They do not want to learn how to use a new OS when the one they know does what they want within a tolerable level of failure.
I know plenty of people that use "something else". Most embedded stuff uses Linux.
So, how do you define "monopoly"?
Score: 0
|Wow, this whole EU thing is getting totaly out of hand.
Score: 0
|All that money......... I can enjoy the rest of my life at cruseliner!!
Score: 0
|I have a question. I realise that any cases of this type of magnitude require much resources and attention to properly investigate, but why so long? Heck, by the time Microsoft successfully appeals the first ruling in 2004 (if that happened, I mean), the damage has already been done.
So the question is: Is that the tactic the EC is using? I am asking, not telling. Perhaps by bombarding MS with fines upon fines, the EC wants to hurt MS in the short term, even if they are overruled in the long run. Heck, the fines against Microsoft in the US regarding IE being integrated with Windows 98 were eventually overturned, but at what cost to Microsoft? In fact, most people don't even realise that MS was eventually cleared for that in the US (the SC did however give MS stern warnings and did officially call them a monopoly--but the IE Windows 98 fine/charges were dropped).
So is this just plain BS? Probably not 100%, but I think some of it very possibly could be. Let's see how the appeals turn out...
Score: 0
|Everything the EC does is "just plain BS". They like to pretend that what they do is for the benefit of the consumer, but it isn't, and they're not fooling anyone. The EC should just go away.
"So is this just plain BS? Probably not 100%, but I think some of it very possibly could be. Let's see how the appeals turn out..."
Score: 0
|Don't forget to mention not only the cost to MSFT, but also the cost to the tax-payer. Think about how many salaries have to be paid during the course of this investigation. Not only do actions like this hurt companies, but they also hurt tax-payers.
~dnc
Score: 0
|I think the fine will more than cover their salaries.
Microsoft should have complied instead of thumbing it's nose at the EU. That was just another example of their poor behavior globally.
Score: 0
|Everything is BS huh? Where are the facts to back that opinion?
Obviously it's not BS since it went to court and they were fined.
Score: 0
|