Whether the EU is right or not, at least now Microsoft gets to feel what its like when someone sticks it to you for bills. Just like Microsoft sticks it to us in overpriced software.

"The move also seems to legitimize the Commission's authority within the EU."

The Commission is part of the EU, it does not need to legitimize its action. The arogant tone of Microsoft certainly does not help to water down continious non-compliance. Non-compliance gets expensive for MS. And given the noisy communication it seems not likely at all they can go away with it.

The Commission is part of the EU, it does not need to legitimize its action.
The EU doesn't even have a fully ratified constitution yet, how can the commission have unquestioned authority when its parent organization doesn't officially have a ratified constitution?

Because a constitution isn't necessary in all forms of government?

That's rich.

I guess they can damn near do whatever they want then, eh? No silly document telling them what their boundries are or anything...

In this particular case, what does being in compliance mean in the EU? Is it even possible to be in compliance?

Australia doesn't have a constitution. :P Laws work just fine, thanks.

The EU treaties constitute the European Union and surely European Antitrust is governed by law and regulation.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

MS knows what it has to do.

They responded to all small diplomatic steps that were taken in an arogant fashion and communicated it that way to the world.

Ms does not take competition authorities serious as they were able to win that way in the US. But it will not work in the EU.

My comment was in response to:

Because a constitution isn't necessary in all forms of government?

...and had nothing to do with Anti-trust.

Thanks. :)

It's amazing how M$ still manages to be one of the most profitable companies ever. Even with their daily stacks of lawsuits, you’d think they would run out of money by now.

Money makes the EU go round.

Microsoft could use their WAG to shut down both South Korea an EU Computers. It would be interesting wat the reaction would be.

Microsoft uses WGA to 'kill' EU and SK computers.

...

SK and EU, in retaliation, deny Microsoft any IP or copyright protection within their borders.

...

WTO kicks SK and the EU out.

...

SK and EU crawl back to MS after re-instating their copyright and IP protections because getting Linux up and running for their infrastructure is costing them billions.

...

Microsoft demands that no otehr OS be allowed to compete in their markets.

Yeah...

I don't see this as being good for anyone.

Microsoft uses WGA to 'kill' EU and SK computers.

...

EU prosecutes all MS employees with computer crime violations, and they ALL go to jail.

...

EU owns Microsoft, and makes it GPL (heh)

Sorry. Enforcing license is not a computer crime. No-one but Microsoft owns any copy of the OS.

The EULA still needs to be proven in court.

It could be considered hacking, and I'd bet they (MS) would lose.

Huh.

I'd bet they'd win. Let's hope we find out sooner than later. I'm sick of this BS. ;)

No, Microsoft would lose.
The EU is bigger than Microsoft. We're talking 14-or-so countries versus 1 company.
As we've seen from the fines, they aren't afraid to challenge them.

But they are afraid to publicize *anything* pertaining to the trial.

Makes one wonder...

They are also trying to tell MS not to seek a higher court.

Again making one wonder...

We're taliking 1 comission vs. 1 company. And that 1 company pretty much controls their infrfastructure. Pissing them off would be a "Bad Thing™".

Isn't it South Korea and NOT the EU telling MS not to seek a higher court? Also, isn't the South Korea antitrust lawsuit separate from the EU antitrust lawsuit?

I'll put $1 on that. :-)

True, It wouldn't be good for anyone. But an Ex President Teddy Roosevelt said " Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick". Microsoft fortunatly or unfortunatly has the big stick. Whatever they do either MS, EU or SK the losers will be the consumer.

BTW PC_Tool
Ever wonder if oneyone of these Groups ever reads the remarks from the consumers like us?

Nope. Got better things to do. ;)

D'oh!

Hey, man. I never said I could read. ;P

Can't wait to see what happens next...this is probably some of the craziest BS I've ever seen.

Don't get me wrong--the law is the law, even if I whole-heatidly disagree with it, and regardless of what I think of it, Microsoft needs to follow the letter of the law. The problem is MICROSOFT did not break a pre-existing law this time, they failed to fulfill the terms/conditions of the previous ruling. Yes, it is law in that disobeying a court order is against the law--my point is that it is crystal clear to me that the EU does not understand anything about the way software is designed. That is a given. Microsoft is chosen by PC vendors and not everyday consumers, and worse, there are several businesses that say Microsoft has done more than enough to allow interoperability with their protocols.

What exactly did Microsoft fail to do SPECIFICALLY? Anyone know specifics? Does the EU even explain them, or do they just vote? Help me out here, because as it stands, EU looks like the group of arrogant pricks, not Microsoft. Microsoft may be many things, but liars? I doubt it. Possible--but I doubt it.

Microsoft is a business. They know Europe is a huge peice of the business puzzle right now. Are they so stupid as to purposefully disobey a court order from the EU in front of the whole world? Even if it would cripple Microsoft, this fine might cripple them worse than the alternative. It makes no sense. The EU, in my opinion, hasn't a clue of what they require from Microsoft. They just believe Microsoft has the ability to conjure up documentation that they themselves do not have to keep. More on this later...

Those that have seen it say: what documentation Microsoft had provided was "devoted to obsolete functionality", "self-contradictory" and was written "primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information".

According to an EC press release, although the 12,000-page document had improved "slightly" from previous versions, "nothing substantial" had been added, and it continues to be "incomplete, inaccurate, and unusable."

We're not arguing whetehr they failed to comply.

We're arguing the justification the EU, or any government has to demand the creators of any IP to 'open' it to the public.

It's like telling Metallica they have provide the written score to every song they make so others can use it to generate 'compatible' music.

Yeha, lame analogy, but, c'mon... Microsoft's code is Microsoft's code, for pete's sake.

Just because any government *thinks* it is right in making or enforcing a law, does *not* mean it is.

"Those that have seen it say: what documentation Microsoft had provided was "devoted to obsolete functionality", "self-contradictory" and was written "primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information"."

How does EU know what technical information is useful or not, when they have no technical experience? Do they base it on their "inside tech" guy? If so...why do they make a landmark case off of ONE PERSON's opinion?

If the documentation is BS, what was it supposed to contain that it did not? WHAT do they want? If it has never been revealed before, how the hell can they or anyone on earth outside of microsoft say that it is "innaccurate" or "incomplete"? They have nothing to compare it to!

This is my point. Microsoft obviously has a desire to stay out of trouble on this one, even if they are the evil empire some make them out to be. Why would they go this far in attempting to fool the EU if they truley knew what they were supposed to provide? EU isn't being specific enough in what they want, to me. They say "provide detailed information and documentation for such and such...", but what is "detailed", what is "documentation"? What are they after? They haven't stated, have they? Does ANYONE know exactly what the EU's point in this is? What do they want from Microsoft that isn't in the documentation? If the EU hasn't given specifics, is it because they are prickheads? Help me out here!

Well--actually I was arguing over whether MS complied or not, but that is due to the vagueness of the court order to begin with. What was the exact wording? Is there a copy of the EU injunction I can read? Please provide a link...

Start here:

http://www.eurunion.org/...press/2004/20040045.htm

It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

-- Thomas Jefferson
from a letter to Isaac McPherson August 13, 1813

God.

More "information wants to be free crap".

...Fruitful as England....Hah! *That's* funny.

The ruling states: "Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products."

The EC has not required any specific details or formatting, just that the end result is useful. And the one person who makes that call was named by Microsoft and aproved by the EC.

Windows is not "ideas which may produce utility"; but an implementation of those ideas. It is that implementation that everyone wants opened up. MS only has a monopoly on its own implementation of the idea, others want that implementation so they do not have to create their own.

Thomas Jefferson didn't say "information wants to be free crap" he said the natural behavior of an idea is to spread far and wide and only when it is a benefit to everyone should a society grant a monopoly knowing that it is unnatural and embarrassing. If there is no benefit to society there should be no grant of monopoly. Copyrights and patents are privileges of living in a civil society.

Well, interface information in order to operate with its servers. Simple task, a technical description of interfaces.

Interesting site, seems like the EU would have everyone believe they have been around for over half a century. I am trying to remember if the organization is even old enough to have had an investigation that long, and if the laws MS supposedly broke were even in their jurisdiction at that time.

Thanks for answering my question...really. I'll do some more research/browsing and see what else I can find...

...still, it isn't clear of what the EU wants. "...complete and accurate interface documentation..." So...what is "complete and accurate", I wonder? Is that not purely subjective? Also:

"...which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers."

Does full interoperability mean...er, what the hell DOES it mean? If the EU expects Microsoft to detail everything Joe dumba** needs to create a program that works with Windows, good luck having that anytime before the year 2100. That's impossible. If not--Microsoft should have no reason to provide anything else, as major manufacturers are able to interoperate with Microsoft. Why does Microsoft support Client Services for Netware? Appletalk? IPX/SPX? What's the problem, again?

I'll need to do some more research, but based on what I'm hearing, the EU truly is requiring for MS to go open source.

Feigned confusion maybe useful legal tactic, but it apparently didn't fool anyone on the EC either.

Yup, there's the 2004 decision--more evidence that you are forgetting yet again (*points to bottom of page*)

Why do you think I sent you that link?

LOL

Interesting.

The word Privilege implies that it is not a God Given right, and thus only applied to those who merit the privilege.

According to the current laws in the US, Copyright and patents are a right. Perhaps TJ was right, in that respect, though. It certainly isn't working the way I believe he intended it to.

"According to the current laws in the US, Copyright and patents are a right."

No, not even close.

Copyrights and patents are privileges granted for limited time. The idea is that a short period of exclusivity will benefit and encourage creative people. Then the free market kicks in to benefit and encourage craftsmen, industry, and consumers.

There is no right to control what other people print, say, sing, or build. But in a polite society we want to give everyone a chance to do well.

And when you are convicted of crimes you can loose privileges including copyrights and patents.

This antitrust thing is stupid. MS tries to make it simple for the end user by having alot of programs preinstalled with the OS and everyone goes after them. I don't see them going after apple for having programs preinstalled with OS X. They already bent over backwards for the EU to make special installs that don't have Media Player on it. What more do they want.
Secondly, if MS pays this Millions of Euros, who gets the money. I'm guessing it will go to the damn lawyers and nobody else.

The South Korean FTC also warned Microsoft against taking the judgment to the high court, saying in a statement that it planned "to actively take counter-measures if Microsoft appeals to the highest court against this decision."
Sounds like alot of foreign courts are trying to prevent thorough verdicts pertaining to MS. In any country, isn't it normally the higher court's jurisdiction to decide which cases it will hear?

I just don't know, anymore when I hear about foreign courts and MS I just can't help but think of Cartman.

"In any country, isn't it normally the higher court's jurisdiction to decide which cases it will hear?"

True! Even in the U.S.A., that's how it was before the Bush Administration decided that everything which might go against them in a court was a "national security matter," therefore could not go before the courts.

It's like a plea bargin. Admit your crime save everyone the cost of a trial and get your best deal. Make the prosecutor go to trial and they will throw the book at you.

lmao...

yeah.

Looks a hell of a lot like extortion to me now. Don't take this to another court, or we'll hurt you more.

So this fine from teh KFTC is really a protection fee?

Niiiiiice.

a case filed by Go Computing, which accused Microsoft of blocking its attempts to enter the operating system market

oh come on.......
another cheap company trying too munch off MS ....
they're not even on the "software" market .....
all they do is tech support and websites ....
PFFFFFFFF

you forgot the first part of that sentance:

On Friday, a Maryland District Court judge threw out...

Score one for the good guys!

The good guys being...?

clearly you don't mean the EU then ...

2 million a day is ridiculous. Any sane person can see how outrageous that is.

Yes, it's a hefty sum of money...but the EU has used their guidelines to come up with the fine. I don't know exactly how they calculated it, it was something like 10% of something else. That fine doesn't only apply to MS but also to other companies in the same situation.

...Not MS, since they broke the antitrust rules.

It is for continuous non-compliance. Imagine you break the law, are sentenced but do not comply with the order. The institutions offer you one delay, another delay and finally fine you for continous non-compliance. It was announced last year. And they still do not comply and hit against the Commission with noisy PR. So the die is cast.

"...Not MS, since they broke the antitrust rules."

Okay, since we cannot seem to understand this (even I forget at times), let me put it in big letters:

THE 2 MILLION EURO-A-DAY FINE IS BASED ON MICROSOFT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EU'S REQUESTS, NOT MICROSOFT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PRE-EXISTING LAW.

Alright, just getting that issue cleared up...