The fines are a joke and the entire case should be thrown out because.

1. Microsoft made the OS and should be able to include whatever software they want and if they want to keep a few protocals secret they made the OS and deserve the advantage.

2. Microsoft is not as much of a monopoly as it is made out to be when you think about it because there is absolutly nothing stopping you from installing third party software or even installing a different OS on your computer and before you say lack of hardware or software support that would be the parts makers and software developers fault not Microsofts.

3. Since somebody will try to put up the defence that Microsoft comes preloaded on retail PCs show me the contract between all the wallmarts tiger directs and all the other major big box stores stating that they will only sell windows boxes.

I may sound like a fanboy but if i find something i like better than windows just like third party software i will switch my preferances and use it instead could be Mac or one of the hundreds of distros of Linux out there proving once again there are other choices out there and if you say you have no choice becaue the buisnesses you deal with use windows again blame the buisness for not useing other OSs instead.

"1. Microsoft made the OS and should be able to include whatever software they want and if they want to keep a few protocals secret they made the OS and deserve the advantage."

The EU made the law and should be able to pursue whatever company that doesn't stick to it.

"2. Microsoft is not as much of a monopoly as it is made out to be when you think about it because there is absolutly nothing stopping you from installing third party software or even installing a different OS on your computer and before you say lack of hardware or software support that would be the parts makers and software developers fault not Microsofts."

The issue here is not if you can install third party software or even a different OS, it is about MS (mis)using it's market dominance (or monopoly as you call it) to put out competition by illegal bundling of software or by preventing others to make fully use of the capacities of the Windows OS like MS can.

"3. Since somebody will try to put up the defence that Microsoft comes preloaded on retail PCs show me the contract between all the wallmarts tiger directs and all the other major big box stores stating that they will only sell windows boxes."

Don't have a problem with that.

The issue here is not if you can install third party software or even a different OS, it is about MS (mis)using it's market dominance (or monopoly as you call it) to put out competition by illegal bundling of software or by preventing others to make fully use of the capacities of the Windows OS like MS can.

Ok now answer this why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to have an advantage seeing as how they spent tons of money making the operating system plus marketing expences plus support costs just to have third party software basicaly freeload off of them.

Yes I said basicaly freeload because without windows their development costs would skyrocket playing cat and mouse with all the changes to all the linux distros Microsoft atleast gives them a stable platform to develop for.

These companies complaining anti competition should actualy step back and think where they would be without windows.

Most homes would not have computers

High speed internet would be expensive and not many places would carry it.

Without the first 2 I mentioned you think the internet would be where it is today ya right your dreaming if you think so

Without microsoft hardware wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.

Without microsoft the would be as much spy/virus/adware as there is today but think they could have always locked down the operating system and not allowed any third party software at all and it would be stable and rock solid but they didn't and some of these conpanies that are crying anti competition have made millions some even billions because Microsoft allowed them to build on to windows.

Go ahead and flame away I have the best flame retardant common sence and logic to look at the big picture over all.(just no spell checker lol)

> Most homes would not have computers

What is this claim based on? Facts show that any area of economy not dominated by a single player is developing much faster then area with a single market dominating player. If anything, more homes would have computers.

> High speed internet would be expensive and not many places would carry it.

Again, what is this claim based on? Microsoft was actively fighting Internet long after most companies embraced it. It was still pushing it's proprietary MSN network (later re-branded as Internet portal) long after Internet server infrastructure was established (Linux/Apache) and browsers developed (Mosaic, then later Netscape).

> Without microsoft hardware wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.

Again, what is this claim based on? Facts show that any area of economy not dominated by a single player is developing much faster then area with a single market dominating player.

What is it based on as i said you need to look at the very big picture what company do you think started advertising to the home user thats right Microsoft by showing people that computers had more use than just buisness aplications and making it easy and fun to use.

It is because of that the chain of events started by Microsoft.

AS home users started buying computers more software had to be created to so that they would buy computers they were expencive back then.

As aplications became more powerfull so to did the need for more powerfull hardware(PC games being one of the biggest factors)and the need for larger and faster storage to keep it on.

To get people to get then expencive dial-up internet service content had to be created and as content became larger so to did the need for faster speeds leading to todays highspeed internet if it was not for home users you think that the internet service providers would invest the very large amounts of money it takes to upgrade their infrastructure if computers were still being used mainly for just buisness.

So again looking at the big picture Windows is the biggest single factor in the way computers and internet are as great as they are today both directly and indirectly by getting easy to use computers in the home.

Commodore started the chain of events, even though the OS used on that system was licensed from Microsoft.

Dial up existed long before Microsoft added DUN to Windows 95, in fact I was on BBSs and connected to the internet before 1989.

Sure, it was tough for a geek then, but AOL (AKA Q-Link to people from the 80s) was there long before Microsoft cought on.

Ahh, the good ol' Commodore, TRS-80's, those were the days eh? BBS's were awesome ... what a big change from then to now eh? lol. I can remember dial up before Win3.1 even, used to be a lot different then as well =)

In each case you mention, Microsoft reluctantly FOLLOWED others, it never started any chain of events that you mention. It followed others to graphic user interface and it followed others to the Internet.

If you yourself look at the "big picture" you will see that like any other market dominating company Microsoft just inflated prices and slowed down innovation. If you think computer industry is impressive now, just think how impressive it would be with free competition and thus much more rapid development.

It sure was, those were the days.

Forums like this are similar, but still so much different.

Systems with 2, 4, 16, 32 modems

Teleconferences

FIDONET

Yeah, I miss that.

Sometimes you must try looking to the smaller picture. You're basically saying that because MS did something right in the past it's OK for them to break the law.

And MS sells an OS to us and we pay good money for it. This money is enough for them to earn back development and marketing costs and make a nice profit from it. In turn for this money we expect to receive an OS where we can run the programs we like.

"3. If this were another company, the fine would not have been so large. The 497 mil euro fine is imposed BECAUSE it is microsoft."

Well der. They do own 90% of the market - thus they've violated the agreement millions of times, and the fine reflects that. The fine is not excessive at all - the issue is whether or not the fine is warranted at all.

To be honest, I don't know enough about the situation to make an informed decision. I think most people on this site are in the same boat, and are judging with prejudice.

1. The fine is excessive from almost any viewpoint.
2. Sure, MS has lots of money--does that mean that they deserve more punishment? Stick with the issue--the EU ruling has to do with WMP and opening the "code" or protocols, not IE with windows 98, not novell, not sun, etc.
3. If this were another company, the fine would not have been so large. The 497 mil euro fine is imposed BECAUSE it is microsoft. The "damage" incurred by MS was nowhere near that amount in this case.
4. Fewt can spewt all the facts about Dr. DOS being stolen, disk fixer becoming scandisk, or whatever, but this is the now. This case has nothing to do with MS-DOS, or IE 4 being part of Windows 98FE, or msjavax86.

Should MS be punished for the crime or for the company? Should a rich murderor be given less or more punishment than a poor one? The system that almost every government uses in the world has become so messed up that it has completely missed the point of law and justice IMO, so these questions are no longer answered the way they should be...

Right and wrong is a matter of $$$ and power now, and appeal to emotions enough and you can get away with it.

It's not that MS "bundles" their IE and WMP, Messenger with windows that's the problem, it's "how" they do it. I don't mind software manufacturers bundling software together as long as I can "un-install" it when ever I feel like it ... just try to do that with MS and see what happens.

Sure MS has "other" flavors of IE, WMP and Messenger, but the base for those systems is tied to the System Core ... err, I mean "bundled" to the point that you cannot un-install them without having some problems with the OS. You cannot un-install the "Core" pieces of these pieces of software from your windows based system. That is in part what this case is about. It's also in part that MS doesn't allow 3rd party vendors to use the same "hooks" that MS uses for their software to better enhance the 3rd party software. MS sells an OS and that's what it should be ... an OS, like Linux is. Yes it comes bundled with a browser and all the rest, but you can take them out or run anything else instead. If MS wants to make an "All-in-One" system, they should market it as such instead of the way they are going about it.

I don't think the fine is "Excessive" for the simple fact that they have done this many times before, therefore the fine should reflect their unwillingness to cooperate with the governing body of the people. It sends a nice clear picture to everyone who wants to break the law ... that is .. it's ok as long as you have the money to pay the fine. Kinda sad isn't it?

Sure the case has nothing to do with the past ... but if you read and look around, you will see that their actions have been built on their past actions, the more they say they change, the more they stay the same ... interesting eh?

"Sure MS has "other" flavors of IE, WMP and Messenger, but the base for those systems is tied to the System Core ... err, I mean "bundled" to the point that you cannot un-install them without having some problems with the OS."

People who use this argument usually do not understand what Windows really is. What makes up the core of Windows? Look in the C:\Windows\System32 folder. There it is. Iexplore.exe is only the framework around the hundreds of libraries, dlls, virtual device drivers, api references, etc., that IE and countless other windows apps use. WMP is removable and so is IE. The problem is I cannot explain, nor can Microsoft explain, that it is nearly impossible to remove what THEY would define "Internet Explorer" or "Windows Media Player" to be. Fewt kills me with this since he of all people here should have extensive knowledge of this.

IE is only about 20-30MB worth of files you can remove by "uninstalling" and removing the C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer folder. All the other stuff besides possibly some orphaned registry entries (needed to re-enable IE BTW) are all that entail IE. commdlg.dll, shell32.dll, winsock.dll, inetpp.dll, inetppui.dll, and the dozens of other files are Microsoft's files, and many third party browsers actually use them to connect to the internet.

The Microsoft strategy is and always has been to make it easy for other vendors to interoperate with windows--to use MS's existing libraries rather than "reinventing the wheel". Why require vendors to redesign the file menu and basic structure of "Windows" (meaning the windows themselves not the OS) when MS already has it? So they have the libraries. Most of IE was present in Windows 95 (pre OSR editions), which was BEFORE INTERNET EXPLORER EXISTED.

Why is this not pointed out? It is in the courts I'm sure--but selective listening and the fact that reporters are dumber than Aunt Sally when it comes to computers and tekkie things--we never hear about it. I can find most IE 2.0 files actually existed in Windows 3.1, though most have been added or appended to other files for IE 32-bit was added. IE64? Yep, some stuff for it exists starting in Windows 2000 SP2, when MS was on the "Itanium" road. How dare they!!! We must destroy them for including it!!! Burn all copies of Service Pack 2 and above for Windows 2000!!!

BTW, should ping.exe, winnt256.bmp, dfrg.msc, mmc.exe, wow16.exe, and all those other thousands of features be removable too? There are countless examples I can provide need me give them.

"You cannot un-install the "Core" pieces of these pieces of software from your windows based system. That is in part what this case is about. It's also in part that MS doesn't allow 3rd party vendors to use the same "hooks" that MS uses for their software to better enhance the 3rd party software. MS sells an OS and that's what it should be ... an OS, like Linux is. Yes it comes bundled with a browser and all the rest, but you can take them out or run anything else instead. If MS wants to make an "All-in-One" system, they should market it as such instead of the way they are going about it."

MS has done this since Windows 3.1, and arguably way before that. Why is this a problem now? Oh yeah, because Novell and those others were still thriving then! Novell PRAISED microsoft for adding the APIs to Windows back in 1993. They wanted this. It is easy to make third party Windows apps now since 95% of the code is already there, only not "open-source".

HOLY CRAP!

Hey, write a book, why don't ya? ;P

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think 90% of the "Monopoly/bundling" crap would go away if they simply changed the naming conventions.

Not Windows Vista, Windows Vista Pak.

For some reason I don't think the fine is unfair. It's based on a percentage.

http://seattletimes.nwso...oft29&date=20060429

Boy, now I feel even less sorry for them.

Wait, there's more!

http://news.com.com/New+...6759-2.html?tag=st.next

Boy, it just never ends.

"it is nearly impossible to remove"

Why did they do this? Oh, to snuff out Netscape. Sure, it has positive benefits like spyware and viruses (well, I suppose being there so it's easy to download Firefox is a plus heh).

WMP is cool, I think the EU is wrong to go after WMP instead of IE but that's not my fight.

"extensive knowledge of this"

Hey, thanks :-)

"The Microsoft strategy is and always has been to make it easy for other vendors to interoperate with windows"

Sure; ask Stac, Netscape, Novell, Real (scratch that last one, REAL killed itself with it's crudware), etc. The list goes on and on and on. Microsoft is getting convicted time and time again and being cought outside ethical boundries time and time again. One day you (just like I did) will realize that the saviors you make them out to be. We have laws for a reason and there can't be that many entities lying just to hurt one company.

"Most of IE was present in Windows 95"

Noooo, IE4 added that to Windows 95. Remember, Active Desktop wasn't available until IE 4.0 and it even offered to "web" enable your desktop for you as an option.

There weren't any IE files in Windows 3.x, unless you are talking about APIs which back then you did had a set of common controls and that's about it.

You didn't get anything beyond that until you loaded IE 3 for Win 3.x.

I think 90% would go away if they threw out some of the key employees and started operating with an ethics program (including the power to terminate any employee in violation of a published ethical standard).

I understand a lot more than you seem to think I do. Like Fewt said, IE really wasn't, I mean truly integrated until IE4 ... sure some things were there, but I'll bet you that MS didn't have a freakin clue why, other than to support other unintentional "cool" features and to help "other vendors". Now? Of course now it is with tha passage of time. MS's strategy has never been to make their competitors "at home" by enabling the same interoperablility that MS enjoys, sigh ... that's part of why they're in court, as they have in countless other court cases in the past. Their competitors have changed because MS sought to take over other avenues other than the OS market.

Umm, yeah, MS slammed the door on those people as proven in court .. again ... Do you work for MS, you have a lot of stock in them or what?

Back in the Win 3.1 days they weren't in the "browser" market, they were in the OS market, they slammed the door to your so called "open api" arguement and is also why they got sued in court for anti-trust. so soon we seem to forget that. They added the API, as you have said yourself to actually help vendors and when they saw they could make a killing in that market, they have either bought the top company, or slammed the door in their face or both. Now I'm not saying that if I was in the same position that I might not have done the same thing ... Let's face reality, if it wasn't for MS, the world would most likely not be near as connected as we are right now. Mr. Gates had the vision, the people and the money to make that happen ... oh and the right timing as well. And one other thing that made it all work out very well, he made everyone around him very very wealthy as a result of it.

"MS has done this since Windows 3.1, and arguably way before that." Oh? I suppose it was intertwined in the netbeui that was in win for workgroups ... Gads what a horrid piece of protocol that was ... lol, oh wait that was after win3.1 .... it was WFW3.11 ... actually ran better than win3.1 until you tried to use the network functions. But anyways, off topic, so you're telling me that IE was present in ye old DOS??? Somehow I find that rather tough to swallow, but yes, some files that were present in ye old DOS are still present in todays Windows, they're just packaged differently.

"Why is this a problem now? Oh yeah, because Novell and those others were still thriving then! Novell PRAISED microsoft for adding the APIs to Windows back in 1993. They wanted this. It is easy to make third party Windows apps now since 95% of the code is already there, only not "open-source"."

Why? I think you will find that Novell and "those" others helped MS to make these API's to make it easier to make those 3rd party windows apps, and yeah, 95% of it IS there, and then they "Closed" it to the 3rd party ... here we go again ... you got it ... ready for it? ... They got taken to court ... again, and again and lost ... But you know what? The damage was already done ... MS's Motto ... Damage first, worry about consequences later.

Anyway, I've had enough of this conversation. MS's track record stands for itself in the records of the past, and present, they have shown that they're not going to change so in all reality, this conversation is just that ... a conversation, there's really no point as MS is going to do what it's always done and the rest of the world is going to do what it does =)

"Should MS be punished for the crime or for the company? Should a rich murderor be given less or more punishment than a poor one?"

MS should be punished for the crime! And that is the way they've been punished! It can be stated that the fine is based on a percentage of MS' turnover and a percentage is the way to go here. A 100,000 dollar fine is peanuts for MS while it can be too high for another company.
Your analogy is flawed BTW. A serial killer should get a more severe punishment than a one time killer or a thief that stole $4 million should pay back more money than a thief who stole only $100.

YES! FINALLY AN INTELLIGENT POST! Sometimes I get bored responding to people that post things without knowledge.

Windows 3.1: NetBUI is irrelevant IMO, but you obviously believe otherwise. I can say that for a small workgroup, NetBUI is so much easier than TCP/IP was to setup at the time. I loved using it as the protocol on my home network between my Win95 and WfW systems.

You are right, MS-DOS did not truly have APIs. Windows 3.1 is the first to truly use these--though Windows 3.0 used the first SDK's (http://www.microsoft.com.../WinHistoryDesktop.mspx) Now, Windows 3.0/3.1 runs off of MS-DOS, correct, but Windows 3.x is not equal to DOS. MS-DOS has no trace of the browser that I see--but Windows 3.1x does. Very miniscule compared to Windows 95 of course. You are arguing what I briefly mentioned only in order to not appear to be uninformed, but the other point I made is still relevant--IE has nothing to do with THIS case, let's just drop it.

"again ... Do you work for MS, you have a lot of stock in them or what?"

Yup, sounds like I work for Microsoft. Maybe I'm lying and I do work for them--but why would/should I lie? Nevermind, believe whatever you want about that. That is unimportant to the argument.

"Back in the Win 3.1 days they weren't in the "browser" market, they were in the OS market, they slammed the door to your so called "open api" arguement and is also why they got sued in court for anti-trust. so soon we seem to forget that."

No, my friend. You remember the old and forget the new--all of the IE integration lawsuits have been partially or completely overturned during appeals. If the EU case is dropped, we can wait 8 years in the future and I bet you will still list the March 2004 ruling as evidence against Microsoft anyway, right? Msjava: Microsoft was stupid and wrong on that one. Sun may not have chosen the best way to resolve the issue, but nonetheless MS blew it. That one has not been overturned in appeals.

"Oh? I suppose it was intertwined in the netbeui that was in win for workgroups ... Gads what a horrid piece of protocol that was"

It had its uses, as I stated above...

", and then they "Closed" it to the 3rd party ... here we go again ... you got it ... ready for it? ... They got taken to court ... again, and again and lost ... But you know what? The damage was already done ... MS's Motto ... Damage first, worry about consequences later."

Almost right. Damage first--appeals later. That's a flaw in our justice system IMO, but another topic for another time. I only know of three major lawsuits against Microsoft that are either pending (in appeals process) or have been affirmed by the court of appeals. Most of the big ones have been overturned...

"Anyway, I've had enough of this conversation. MS's track record stands for itself in the records of the past, and present, they have shown that they're not going to change "

They DID change. WMP free Windows available in EU, they've opened up the APIs to third parties...what else need they do? FF and Apple are proving that the best way to "fight" a "monopoly" is with competition and not lawsuits. IE 7 is coming out, and while many criticise it, the BIGGEST complaints--ActiveX and no tabs--have been addressed. Why? Because the EU forced them? No, because Mozilla realised that Microsoft is not the unstoppable monopoly that people make them out to be. Apple Ipods, now the Intel Macs--MS is getting competition now!

Sure, you can leave the conversation--but I am glad that I have (or had) someone intelligent to argue with finally...

"Noooo, IE4 added that to Windows 95. Remember, Active Desktop wasn't available until IE 4.0 and it even offered to "web" enable your desktop for you as an option."

No, the *FIRST VERSION* of Windows 95 did not include IE. The Windows 95 Plus! pack included IE 2.0, but IE 4.0 was not included until Windows 95 OSR2.1a which was released in 1997. Wsock*.dll files and many of the other network files were included even without the Plus! pack in the OEM Windows 95...but by itself IE was not installed. Look into it. A+ exam tested me over 12 unique versions of Windows 95 (though to me there are technically only 4--DCOM is a separate add-on IMO), and that is where you have been mislead...

Yeah, Microsoft was hot headed about "destroying" Netscape back then--nonetheless the final decision was somewhat in Microsoft's favor (http://www.stern.nyu.edu...Dealer_July_11_2001.htm)

Active Desktop (and IE 4.x) wasn't built into Windows until Windows 98. It was available as an add-on to Windows 95 via a download from Microsoft. Windows 95 GOLD and 95A did not include IE. Windows 95B, and C included IE 3.x though it came bundled as an add-on CD.

Plus did include IE2 (if memory serves), but it was $25. IE 3 was seperated, and it was $45 off the shelf (though it came with 95B and C on that seperate installation CD for a while.)

I thank you for the compliment, though, I wonder at times if I'm really intelligent ... lol.

Boy, that link was a trip to the past, windows 1.0 ... eww, but hey, back in the day it was ... crappy ... hehe. but they improved upon it thanks to Apple, no they didn't steal it from apple, Apple threw it away and MS grabbed it up and now we have windows ... I believe it was called "Gem" at the time. Windows 3.1 was really the only windows worth mentioning, but they did have to start somewhere.

I preferred using IPX/SPX back then, yes, I was a Novell person back then. Netbeui was "easier" to setup, but man it was soooo slow ... gads it was slow. I found IPX/SPX much easier, but then I was a geek back then. Still am, just not as deeply involved in coding .. yuck.

Again, Netbeui never had any uses for me nor for any of the hundreds of companies that I installed networking on either. Sure it ran fine if you had mega doses of RAM to toss at it, but not every company is willing to dump that kinda RAM at the problem, not back then, RAM was pretty expensive in those days comparatively speaking. Most companies ran WIndows on the desktop and then other software for their Office like wordperfect, Lotus and Harvard graphics presentation manager. Back then most the windows components, i.e. word, excel, powerpoint were basically terrible and had a hard time working with each other. Now days they are all pretty much the same as far as features go. I will say that WFW ran great and much faster than Win3.1 as long as you didn't tell it to use any of its own networking components. Too bad it was short lived really because win95 came out shortly after that.

Anyway, perhaps we'll get to voice our opinions at each other again soon =) always enjoy talking about computers, where they came from and where they're going. I think MS has the right ideas, I just think they go about it the wrong ways. I prefer Linux over Windows for most things. It's far more stable, but that too is another conversation ...

"The server protocols are not secret because they are important. They are important because they are secret." - Tridge

I believe MS was told what the penalties were 2 or 3 years ago.
They fought long and hard.
Why are they crying now?
I don't see how they thought they'd win anyway, they were fighting the ideals of other countries. as a governing agency, i wouldn't bend for a foreign company either, they'd do what i wanted, or they wouldn't operate there PERIOD

"I believe MS was told what the penalties were 2 or 3 years ago. They fought long and hard.
Why are they crying now?"

Finally a good question, and also a very viable one. Why did MS wait till now to talk about the fine? Seems kinda stupid for a multi-billion dollar company to wait two years after the ruling to argue against it, right? Let me answer your question.

First of all, they complained in the very beginning about it--now they are only re-iterating their arguments. Remember that the media is reporting only recent events as of late, and selectively report past events. Looking at Microsoft's own website's legal area, this has been objected more vigorously by Microsoft when it first happened than recently. So, selective reporting is partly to blame. More response to come...

- sigh - I really hope that this was the last topic about the whole MS vs. EU issue until the final decission. It's not funny anymore (like it was at first) to read the comments. Some even come up with some ridiculous ideas or posting things for facts when they really aren't.
I also hope some of you read up on this issue and not letting BN be your only source for information and then come back and comment about this because a lot of you are just making fools of yourselves.

IE has been part of the operating systm in xp 9108 whether or not some people may have tha ability to removed from the OS and the WMP as well the fact is that the vast majority of users do not know how to do that. Therefore, is is monopolistic. Microsoft is a very important company in the net but by no means is the only important one o the inventor of the net for that matter. The EU is not the only body that has placed fines in Microsoft. In recent times Microsfot had to pay billions of dollar in damages to other companies because their monopolistic pratices (or the I invent everything flag).

Where is the article that said the EU said that Microsoft was forcing users to use WMP and IE?

"...the Redmond company called it "excessive" as they argued Microsoft did not knowingly engage in monopolistic practices."

HAHAHA RLOL!!!

Microsoft don't know what they do, poor Microsoft.
EU should fine another $5000M to MS just for being SO hypocrite.

Ever since people have started buying Microsoft Software a lot of governments have tried to fine them for whatever stupid reasons.
Use the money used for all these court cases to educate the poor and under priviledged in this world. A fine for microsoft will only jack up the prices.
Buy computers with windows or encarta and send them to the underdevelopped countries.

templar the difference beween linux and windows is that in linux you have the choice to install media players, browsers etc while in windows you do not have such a choice and that is what the argument is about. By installing media player you prevent the competition from improving their own software. That is the media player and the browser as well. Sure in Linux you have the choice to install what you call distros while in windows you do not have such a choice.

Apple should also be fined, for shipping OS X with QuickTime and iTunes. It's the same. If you fine MS, fine Apple too. Can you uninstall QuickTime ? I don't think so...

thanks. but i believe there's an option to easily uninstall WMP. correct me if i'm wrong.

Apple has no dominant market position.

No, it is not the same thing. Quicktime in Mac OS X is part of the core of the system: Not forced to stay in the core like Internet exploited in windoze but more like directx. Different matter is in windows, where quicktime is just a parasite.
Also, to unistall iTunes in Mac os, you only have to move the application to the trash, it leaves no dlls or crap around.
Microsoft should be fined for sabotaging Mac OS versions of their software too. It's harder to probe it in court, but they do it all the time (call it Office 2004, Virtual PC, Me$$enger, etc, etc)

Floodland, according to your understanding, it is the same thing as IE being bundled and therefore they should be fined. A position on the market should not be the only reason for determining if someone should be fined. They are using the same techniques.

If people stopped buying MS and started purchasing Mac, then do we fine Mac for quicktime? I hate quicktime and wouldn't want to be forced to use it - even though it plays only specific file extensions.

I would hate to see MS prevented from being competitive and innovative with regards to their products and future versions based soley on their market share. Nothing that MS has done so far has prevented me from installing what I want on my PC without any problems.

It is not anyones responsibility to show others how to use a product - add or remove. These same people don't understand how to update or configure browser settings for security. We cannot blame these all on MS.

I am all for fair trade and keeping companies from intentional monopolistic tactics. Laws should change that reflect this thinking and not just target companies that have the most.

It is not MS's fault that I don't like RealNetworks or Firefox. We have the ability to install them and remove them as we wish. Their is no reason that WMP or IE have to be totally removed from my computer as long as when I connect to the Internet to do the surfing Firefox and when I play a media file that isn't specific to MS, it plays whatever player I have chosen.

These are my opinions.

I just mentioned IE because is a good example of bad behaviour: MS were sanctioned because of IE, and not by EU (hit by MS fans here) but by the US DOJ and 20 US states.
The main reason of because we're still suffering from the big black holes in internet explorer is that Microsoft did not agree with the US DOJ in 1997 to remove IE from their OS core (windows 95/98 in that moment). Showed that it was a lie (in that moment) that IE could not be removed, they made sure for their next version that IE could NOT be removed. So, windows 2000 and internet exploited 5.5 formed one of the most dangerous couples ever seen. IE 5.5 was hardcoded into the OS on purpose and we're STILL paying that, having to update the browser every month and knowing that it will NEVER be secure. All of this just because Microsoft extremely wanted to kill Netscape and not agree with the DOJ.
Fortunately for us, Microsoft took so long to release their next beast (IE7) that we can use Opera or FF without fear. They were busy trying to kill another competitors.
Apple never did anything like that, and frankly don't think they will, ever.

Roberttodecorazon- you're wrong. you can use any media player on MS OS. I, for example, use the one that came with my sound card because it has features the WMP does not have.

Ever ask yourself a question: "How am I going to download FireFox if Windows didn't come bundled with IE?"

C'mon. Even Linux distros that I have seen come with their own browsers, media players, office software, web server, database server and a bunch of other things when you install.

The Big fish is entitled to live so is the small fish

If micrsoft would spend more time in improving it browser and its operating system instead of preventing competition from others perhaps we do not have to receive 60 updares in a year quite often an update to repair another update. Microsoft has done a good job in the past, however is behind times. More graphics in is OS does not improve is mediocre and insegure browser.

Question for all you MS haters..

Why doesnt the EU sue the OEM companies for loading up the Install discs with software consumers dont want. Like Compaq, HP, Dell ect?

Its the same thing really.

FOR GOD SAKES, IF YOU DONT WANT TO USE WMP OR IE JUST DOWNLOAD AN ALTERNATIVE ITS JUST A GOOGLE AWAY!!

But wait, that poses a problem. You cant browse the internet or google if you dont use IE, unless you go spend more cash ontop of buying an OS to install a browser on ur comp.

Thats a great idea, lets sell a Windows Version without IE or WMP. So we can go back to the practice of having to BUY a freaking browser at the store for 50 bucks.

While we are at it why dont we just rip the GUI and go back to command line.

hmmmm perhaps instead of stating some response that doesnt REALLY address any issue whatsoever, why not post something useful and relevant?

so IE doesnt come bundled with windows.. then what? well, THEN browser developers bid for the right to have THEIR browser be part of an isp or ols install cd. I know they all use them, comcate, roadrunner, sbc, etc - they all have install cd's! the browser is then put on there and installed from there.

and you can CHOOSE not to have unwanted software from being preinstalled on your computer. just dont use your web form, call the oem dfeveloper and tell them what you want and dont want and they will be more than happy to give it to you.

Not using IE and WMP means that they are still preloading on bootup. That they are still using system resources and taking up disk space. better to have a lean clean install than all these "start on boot" items that slow computers down.

I totally agree it is time all the losers ( MS haters ) come up with an alternative or put a sock in it

So, if you don't like MSs business practices you are a loser?

WOW, you sound like a real winner.

Agreed. I just don't like it when people try to compare Microsoft's issues to Apple. Even though Apple doesn't have a huge share of the market (but they're moving up) you don't hear about other countries having problems with their products or software.

We all have a choice: Winblows, Mac or *nix. This is a Microsoft problem. Stop bringing everyone else into their crap.

Now for a North American court to fine Microsoft 500 million dollars, or several very large fines to deter M$. Splitting M$ into several pieces, along with the fines, would also be great.

Can't wait to see Walmart undercutting M$. Windows XP Walmart Edition *grin*

497 million euro fine for adding a media player to Windows. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
This is just about a bunch of socialist countries trying to steal legally earned money by extortion.
No one is forced to use Windows. No one is forced to use Windows Media Player.

Sell your product in our "socialist countries", then you play by the rules of our socialist countries. No one is forced to sell their products in Europe.

If Microsoft even stopss supporting, let alone selling their products in europe, you won't even be able to order hamburger from a mcd.

no, the stupidest thing I ever heard is to have people rebel and go to war for freedom against tyranny and taxation without representation, and 200 + years later become the very system they fought and died to fight against. now THATS stupid :)

no, noone is forced to use windows but everyone IS forced to pay ms money if they buy a computer or a component because of some of the lame greedy deals Bill Gates did years ago, no matter WHAT you do you are still paying HIM :) (lol thats what some would say, me? I say, "if you must use windows then why be forced to have software installed you dont want installed. I cant think of a single windows install scenario that will allow you NOT to install IE for one thing and even if you choose NOT to install WMP, part of it is installed anyhow. if I want windows to install and NOT have any internet access, I am still able to start up ftp and telnet... no way to keep these from installing.. stop shoving sh*t down my throat I dont want :) ")

That's a bunch of crap, MCD did just fine before they switched TO Windows.

If MS stopped supporting Windows in the EU the world wouldn't stop either. They can't just say "You all must stop using Windows", or whomever made the decision would be in jail.

Plus all those fat european politicians have probably already spent the money.

"Lawyers for the Redmond company called it "excessive" as they argued Microsoft did not knowingly engage in monopolistic practices."

LOL, yep I do belive the EU has got there attention now.

'Ian Forrester, a Microsoft attorney, said the fine was imposed more out of creating media interest, saying "the largest fine in history would make for large headlines."'

No, on formal grounds. And the fine is a joke, MS knows it. The US competition authorities even wanted to break MS into pieces.

Hope Forrester did not speak up like this in the Court hearing. Or did he?

"The Commission denied that charge."

What charge? Forrester ruins his reputation and the reputation of the company he represents and the commission just plays nice and does not generate 'large headlines'.

The BN headline title makes MS seem like a bunch of bumbling bafoons, stating the obvious. Not quite the case.

Anyway, getting to the actual issue (without spin)--Ian has a point about the fine. It is indeed the largest one imposed in history. The point of it is to deter MS from "repeat offending", therefore they discriminate against Microsoft based on income. That's right--discriminate. Man, I bet King Solomon is glad he wasn't around during these times--imagine how many people would file lawsuits against him!

Shouldn't they?

Disregarding any slant on this issue at all, if they came up with a standard-issue fine that they would levy on anyone in cases like this, would it not break some companies, while causing others to not even flinch?

Yeah this goes along with the heading that you go after deep pockets. A fine should be standardized, not based on income. That's BS.

You can fine a company, and they won't do it anymore, any upstanding company won't continue to piss away money, even small amounts, that's just not good business..

EU commission are obviouly against MS for some weird reason, I said this before. They are so biased, its not even funny.

the punishment should fit the crime. 500 million dollars, for what?

What if a smaller company did this, would they also see a 500 million dollar fine? I doubt it. they went after MS, for ONE reason, because they know they would pay.

The EU is so biased against MS from the beginning, they never did get a fair trial, and they won't let them appeal either, what are they afraid of.

If you punish someone, its to get their attention, not intended to bilk them out of their retirement assets. You fine a company, they know they did wrong, but if they do it again, THEN all bets are off, and you can shoot for the moon.. but considering MS is marked in several countries, everyone wants a piece of them...

IMHO, punishment should fit the crime, not the offender...

...that's just me though.

GMTA!

"any upstanding company"

Exactly the opposite of the company in question.

"but if they do it again"

So, how many convictions will it take?

You've completely killed your own argument.

> IMHO, punishment should fit the crime, not the offender...

Exactly. The size of the punishment should fit the size of the crime. And the size of the crime in this case (amount of software sold as a result of illegal monopoly abuse) is huge. So is the fine.

arguably it is the largest fine in history and justifiably so, with that fine and the daily additions to it the EU is attempting to do something that actually makes a difference. Past fines of lesser amounts have done nothing whatsoever to deter Microsoft from running rampant with it's monopoly control of the industry. when past attempts have shown failure the other choices are higher fines or prison sentences... something that WILL make Microsoft pay attention

Illegal monopoly abuse? Microsoft never forced you or anyone else to use Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Microsoft also did NOT threaten to make Windows incompatible with competing software in any way.

Keeping these points in mind, what was it that Microsoft did that was so bad specifically?

ms has been fined over and over again and continue as you say to "piuss away money" does that mean by your standards - that they arent an upstanding company?

they put 500 million fines against MS simply because - the past history of the company shows them that lesser fines mean little. when all else fails the only recourse left is either higher fines in this company's case or imprisonment. stop whining about the size of the fine... ms claims the fine is too much because for once SOME ENTITY has the balls to grab ms by the short hairs and hold them accountable and the fine is so much that it might actually hurt them where it counts most.

The EU is against anything it can't control. It's like an insane mammoth, charging at people. Fortunately, Mammoths are extinct. I hope the EU soon will be.

I want the UK to become Region 1 ;)

"NOT threaten to make Windows incompatible with competing software"

That's absolutely untrue, they did it to Novell with Dr-Dos.

There is a list of things that they have done, it's just a google away.

IE (all convictions):

Illegal bundling (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31249), Software Piracy (http://www.vnunet.com/vn...nvicted-software-piracy), Leveraging a Monopoly (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4900/4909.htm), the list goes on but well this is enough. If you want more, you can do the research yourself.

They hit them for a percentage just like they would any other company.

It's not the EUs fault Microsoft has gobs of money, and it's not like Microsoft EARNED much of it either.

eh?

Or rather...

WTF?

Personally, I believe the EU will grow stronger and more co-ordinated over time. It's a complex business running so many diverse communities, but I believe it to be a worthwhile goal.

I don't want the UK to become Region 1. What a stupid thought!

MS are simply reaping the results of their actions. The US seem to be not enforcing their previous decision regarding keeping monopolistic companies under control. We'll see if the EU has a bit more success.

I know I am beaitign an antique hjorse in it's rotted skull here but making the os incompatible with other os's? LOL try installing windows xp and old IBM os/2 warp (or warp server for eusiness, or eCommStation) and dont use the journaled file system for the os/2 insta;l;, use the native HPFS. os/2 will see windows xp NTFS as a corrupted hpfs and windows wont boot at all if you have hpfs installed anywhere

> but making the os incompatible with other os's?

Not OS, applications. Windows was an application at the time, running on top of MS-DOS, and it was running perfectly on top of DR-DOS also. That is if you patch a check for DR-DOS which Microsoft purposely (as was proved at the trial) placed there.

I was referring to the antitrust lawsuit starting with Windows 95 having IE bundled with the OS. Microsoft never threatened to make Windows 95 or later incompatible with any competing software. In fact, one of Microsoft's biggest selling points with Windows 95 and later was the fact you could use competing software such as Netscape Navigator and Real Player.

The antitrust lawsuits taking place in Europe and Korea are based on someone's opinion, not fact, that including a particular type of program with an OS that has more than 95% market share eliminates competition, which is completely untrue. It was the same case with the USA antitrust lawsuit.

IE versions 3 and 4 were superior than the versions of Netscape Navigator at the time in every way. The best competition that IE 3 and 4 got was Netscape 6 (yuck!).

The reason most people use Windows Media Player over Real Player is because Windows Media Player has had superior video and audio quality since version 8.

The fact that there is a Region 1 (or 2 etc. up to 6) is so that big companies (not, in this case, the one being pursued by the EU) can make me pay more for a product than it makes someone else pay. Interesting, too, that the company named in this lawsuit is able to make a "cut down" version of Windows for other markets, call it "Starter Edition" and sell it at a fraction of the price I paid. Yet it claimed that the things it was miraculously able to remove for some markets were impossible to remove for others.

I am an EU (UK) citizen and I have been stuck by these tactics. Americans, wake up: so have you.
Perhaps some of the patriotism or blind stupidity we have seen on these threads is just a little misplaced.

IE 3 was pretty good (for the time), but IE 4 was utter crap. Netscape 4.x was much better, and it's still supported today by a multitude of sites where IE 5 isn't even. I'll give you that WMP codecs are pretty darned good, but they weren't until a viable competitor appeared (DIVX). Real has always been crap, the only reason they ever had any market share was because they were the first to stream audio and video (to the masses) over dial-up.

"Microsoft did not knowingly engage in monopolistic practices."

Wait, is being a Monopoly alone enough to get you in trouble in the EU?

I almost hope they choose to fine MS. Mainly because I'm pretty sure MS will simply not pay it.

It must be costing the EU a King's Ransom *grin* to keep this going. I wonder how much it'll cost them to haul MS back in for not paying up.

You just awakened a sleeping giant (fewt is about to cut you to peices). Just warning ya...although I mostly agree.

Fewt's a teddy-bear.

I made no claims as to their being a monopoly or not, nor did I make any claims whatsoever as to their beign right or wrong in this instance.

Hopefully, that will keep the flames at bay. Just in case, though, I do have my bucket of water nearby.

The trouble is, define Monopoly. Not the plain dictionary version, but the actualy practice of a Monopoly..

They shouldn't use that word with impunity, it serves a purpose. It should be used with caution, if a company acts like a monopoly, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean they bullied their way into companies and threatened them? Can companies simply not go someplace else? Did they force someone into a deal with the Devil for their soul if they can't meet MS targets?

I don't think so.

Walmart engages in monopolistic practices everyday, its called undercutting the closest competitor, no one notices that. Walmart has such huge buying power, they can undersell on a moments notice, and they do. If some local large chain starts advertising a product, and its similar to Walmart, if the management gets wind of it, they will tell that LOCAL Walmart to lower prices and undercut by 10% so that other chain won't get more marketshare.

This actually happened in GA. But you don't hear about that... MS makes news, not some local podunk.

I like Walmart, I shop there regularly, but my point is, where do you draw the line between monopolistic, and advantageous advertising and selling? MS is very opportunistic. I am not saying they are innocent, but Car Dealerships, electronics stores, competing drug companies, they all do the same thing, its called BUSINESS.

I don't consider this worthy of 500 million dollars, I think it is excessive. Should they be fined? Yes, because they broke the law, fine.. but its not worth 500 million dollars.

I know they are making an example of them, but they CHOSE to go after MS because of who they are, I would be willing to bet, there are other companies that didn't get this kind of publicity, for similar practices, in Europe.

I hope they don't, MS needs a major management change.

That's the way to get it too.

Teddy bear?

WTF is that all about?

:-P

heh

I don't shop at Walmart.

Every neighborhood that gets a Walmart turns to sh*t, and they treat even their best customers like criminals.

Last weekend I visited a Walmart, and bought $100 in goods (a short trip). On the way out a GREETER decided that my brand new stroller may contain stolen goods so they opened the sealed box and searched it.

Couldn't believe it, nor could the director I complained to.

Nope, Walmart got the AXE. I wouldn't stop there if there wasn't another store for 20 miles.

Don't even think you'd get service that bad at KMART (yet another place I wouldn't walk into to even ask for directions heh).

heh

At last someone who has put some thought into the whole EU v MS debarcle.

However the EU (and I'm no EU fan by the way) has simply applied Articles 81 and 82. It is arguable wether MS were in fault, but the courts have found them to be so.

Standard practice for a company found breaching Articles 81 / 82 is a fine of not more than 10% of their world turnover.

Having a standard fine would be devastating to reletively small monopolistic companies whilst allowing the real super giants to set it against their bad debt etc.

It will be the biggest fine on record because MS are the richest company to break the rules. Prior to this I believe it was United Banana Brands who held that acolade.

$500 million sound excessive but the question is how much is that of their world wide turnover?

PC_Tool and fewt... a real Brokeback moment ; ) lol

Read what MS has done in the past Rip ... they got axed for what they did to Netscape years ago, MS did the same exact thing with their Winmedia player in Europe, read up on that and you should see that they did NOT change their business practices, instead they just moved the place that they did these kinds of practices and they got caught. Yes, Companies can go somewhere else, but let's look at where the market share is at ...

Walmart ... sigh, I don't shop there even though they have cheaper prices than most people. Why? Because while they have an excellent business plan ... probably the best business plan to model your company after ... People who buy from Walmart are just contributing to the downfall of the American economy. I mean look at how they operate, they hire people for minimum wage, sometimes illegal immigrants when they can and then they don't work most of them full-time at all so that they have to depend on the state for their medical and all other benefits. Sooo, almost all of what Walmart makes is profit! an awesome business plan that the US should never have approved. It places all the benfit burdens on the American people instead of owning up to their employees, and yes, I think the US should take action against the company to operate in a fashion as to help the US, not hinder. This is just another mark to keep the poor ... well, at poverty level and keep the rich ... another rung up on the ladder of wealth. While I'm all for the wealthy making money, it is their right, but to do it at the cost of the general pool of taxpayers isn't quite right in my book. They should care a bit more for those people who are the ones making them the money (employees), yet they're slapping them in the face instead ... at least that's the way I see it. At least MS pays their employees well, and they also got their hand slapped for doing something similar to what Wlamart does, except with their "Temps" ...

> Mainly because I'm pretty sure MS will simply not pay it.

Like any other court decision of this kind it will be easily enforced by confiscating property. And Microsoft has a lot of property in EU, including bank accounts, etc.

That's why Microsoft will pay this fine promptly once all appeal options are exhausted.

Better than pimpin chimps.

Wait, no it isn't. :-(

heh

Teddy Bear you know soft, cuddly, loveable! (HaHa)

The amount of people going on about the size of the fine astounds me. Whilst the sum is enormous to normal people, it's virtuall insignificant to MS.

"Next, he defended the size of the record €497m fine. He described this as 0.3 per cent of Microsoft’s turnover during each year of the abuse or the profit the company has made in the last five days - the period of the hearing."

Source - http://www.theregister.c..._trial_friday_afternoon/

Yeah - all that huge fine is JUST five days profit for MS.

Riight LOL