Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision 237
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?
A lot of people don't agree with the EU anti-trust, personally I think the EU is succeeding where the US anti-trust cases failed, they are actually punishing M$, hopefully, Microsoft will learn a lesson this time around.....I doubt they will though.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, you can't dominate a marketplace and expect to do bsuiness as you please...it's just too risky - especially when you consider that the medium in question is a huge part of the technical infrastructure.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems all of their own interoperability is for the purpose of migration [to Windows], not for peaceful cohabitation in a mixed computing environment.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just can't believe they are using the "shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace" argument.
I have a monopoly on product X, therefore I should be allowed to let it continue to inflict pain and damage. This is a defense?
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2, Troll)
What kind of pain are they inflicting and on whom? Same question for damage.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
here, in some sectors (banking) company can be considered for extensive monitoring and anti-monopoly measures if it's marketshare is bigger than 40%. i'm sure there is no sector where more than 90% isn't considered a monopoly from legal view.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Succession of arguments: (Score:4, Interesting)
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
Re:Succession of arguments: (Score:2)
and what are you going to do about it?
Then, the only solution would be to outlaw the use of Microsoft
products.
Re:Succession of arguments: (Score:2)
Re:Succession of arguments: (Score:2)
marketshare and a perfect place for alternatives to grow - that is the real threat to microsoft. too bad that isn't happening, if it ever got close enough, bribing everybody in sight will help every time.
The question- why the need for protocol protection (Score:2)
The bigger question is why do they need to protect the protocols and APIs? _IF_ their product is superior, who would use anything else? If someone made software that could communicate with Windows clients/servers (Samba makes a good example), and Windows is still better, few if any people would use Samba, and hence it would cease to exist.
So the question becomes- are
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford does not (and can't really) use its leverage to make the auto parts manufactures to produce only parts for them and not anyone else.
Ford can't basically tell you... "Drive us, or you will have to walk".
If company A switches from windows to something else, (assuming they will unhook the leash to do so... stockholm syndrome comes to mind.), depending on their industry, they may not be able to function... this is not entirely due to the classic arguement of "no applications"..
The long and short of it is that Micro$haft is being "singled out" (as you say) because of what they have done in the industry, not their size. You don't cage the gorilla for being 500lbs; but if he smacks everything that comes within 50 feet to death, and prevents any little gorillas from being born... I'm pretty sure you want a wall between him and you.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Why would you want to install a Ford A/C system into a BMW? Most cars these days come with A/C already installed, so it's a non-issue. If you really wanted to, I'm sure it'd be possible to fabricate some special mounting brackets and mount a Ford A/C compressor on your BMW engine, and then make some special hoses to connect it. But it'd be a lot easier to just buy a reconditioned BMW compressor or a used one from a junkyard.
Open standards aren't very big in the auto indust
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
It's unbelievable how many people here are ignorant (probably willfully) of monopoly laws. It's not rocket science. Or maybe people like you are just MS astroturfers.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
This antitrust isn't about being successful, It is about being successful by cheating and underhanded tricks. It is about abusing a monopoly psoition to squelch any competition that could be better for the consumers.
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, microsoft didn't care one bit about multimedia or even the internet at one time. All they wanted to do was make it so you bought thier product because you used it at work. Windows 95 didn't even have a "media player" or web browser at first.
Alot of third party companies came along and said lets do this and fill this niche in the market(for whatever reason). This is either internet, multimedia or whatever else. Microsoft vreated an addo
Re:Why the complaints? (Score:2)
Sure, George (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sure, George (Score:2)
Jesus?!?! (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think your, Jesus analogy will hold because Jesus' disciples were men of peace and unlike some of the people at Microsoft they would never have thrown chairs at the faithful.
Re:Jesus?!?! (Score:2)
At the faithful? no. But I think you should re-aquaint yourself with Matthew 21:12:
"And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said unto them, 'It is written, "My house shall be called a
Re:Jesus?!?! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Jesus?!?! (Score:2)
I think you're missing the guy's point. MS is trying to paint themselves as some wonderful company that obeys the laws and doesn't hurt anyone, when in fact any idiot can see that they're an abusive monopolist. Just like how they're always screaming about innovation, when in fact they do very little innovation of their own and
Re:Jesus?!?! (Score:2)
Among other things, Jesus kind of said things like, you don't need to talk to a priest to talk to god, and other things that struck hard at the business model of the Pharisees and their monopoly on access to God, as well as their sucking up to the Romans.
Design and documentation (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything can interoperate with any other as long as the protocols are documented and those documents are made available.
Re:Design and documentation (Score:4, Insightful)
MS's SMB/CIFS implementation is really not different. They refuse to teach anyone else the protocols (language) and what progress there has been was due to packet sniffing (listening in) and repeating things back that seem right to see what happens.
Re:Design and documentation (Score:2)
And this one should be obvious: if you hate
Re:Design and documentation (Score:2)
Frankly... (Score:5, Funny)
Msg to those in EU (Score:4, Interesting)
We need open standards. We need interoperability. However, closed standards, proprietary formats, and DRM all serve to preserve marketshare by those owning the technology and serve to lock out any competition. Bid on a project and you can propose vendor A version 2000 or vendor A version 2003 or vendora A version XP.... Now that is competition, right?
Re:Msg to those in EU (Score:2)
Wrong argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society. If they don't want to be treated as criminals then they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
They may be attempting to appeal that decision, however for the fact remains that it's not their success that has them up in the dock, it's their illegal behaviour.
Specifically for abusing their monopoly position to the detriment of the market - adminttedly the monoply does show they were successful but that entire argument is a fallacy.
Re:Wrong argument (Score:2)
You are entirely correct. Microsoft are criminals. I don't think there is any doubt over this.
The only fundemental difference is who's getting the share the loot
Re:Wrong argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could punish people who spout insincere rhetoric like this by treating them as if they were being honest.
Microsoft: "We shouldn't be punished for becoming successful."
EU: "Okay, we agree to those terms, appeal over."
[A month goes by.]
Microsoft: "Why are you forcing us to comply with the original judgement?"
EU: "Why wouldn't we? That wasn't a punishment for being successful, that was a punishment for being anticompetitive."
Microsoft: "We appeal!"
EU: "You already had your appeal, we agreed to your terms, remember?"
Re:Wrong argument (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part :-)
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument ... they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
Is deliberatley an English word, too? No wonder us 'merican hicks cain't git it right.
[Just pulling your leg. Not disturbed, just amused.]
Re:Wrong argument (Score:2)
Re:Wrong argument (Score:2)
Re:Wrong argument (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized"...
Actually, that should be "penisized", beat with a wet noodle.
MjM
Re:Wrong argument (Score:2)
One of the things that seperates a Democracy, with a Dictatorship, is that laws are precise and followable. "Don't drive faster than 100km/hour". That is a good law. It is absolutely clear what that law means. "Don't release more than x tons of carbon per y kw energy produced". That
What IP rights ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What intellectual property rights ? The EU Commision didn't ask for the source code (copyright), and software patents have no legal value in Europe...
Re:What IP rights ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What IP rights ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting aside the French attempt to create a new form of Intellectual property (the DRM right), is there any other form of IP I hav
Re:What IP rights ? (Score:2)
So why I get fined for speeding, can I argue that it's my money and I don't have to hand it over...?
They're just whining.
Re:What IP rights ? (Score:2)
Therefore, there are no software patents in any of the member countries.
Besides, the action MS takes is against EU as a whole, and not in a specific country of Europe.
I'm from EU (France) and not US, and am not aware of all subtilities of the US legal system, but it would seem logical that when a case is handled by a federal court, federal law prevails state law, right ?
N
Ah, I see! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, I see! (Score:3, Interesting)
Its non-Microsoft client operating systems that they have the problem with.
Not really. MS has not been judged as having a monopoly in the server space (rightfully so, IMHO). It has been judged as having a monopoly in the desktop space. MS can tie its servers to anything it wants, except its desktop. Because it has a monopoly on the desktop it is illegal for them to tie anything to the desktop via bundling or secret protocols, because it gives them an unfair advantage in the new market (in this case serve
Idea for /. poll (Score:2)
* From 1 to 6 months
* From 6 months to a year
* From 1 to 2 years
* From 2 and 5 years
* More than 5 years
* When CowboyNeal says it will
Place your bets, gentlemen. Place your bets.
Someone get the EU to double or nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft is appealing on flagarantly fraudulant grounds that lie somewhere between making false statements to a court of law, deceptive advertising, and wilful abuse of the appeals system, then the EU should seriously examine if the law would allow them to increase the fine. Doubling it would seem suitable.
This needs to be settled, once and for all, in a way that is fair but decisive.
Re:Someone get the EU to double or nothing (Score:2)
From what I understand, the SMB protocol that samba works on has been around longer than Microsoft have been using it. It's another case of the embrace, extend and exclude method of "innovation" that landed MS in the courts in the first place.
Re:Someone get the EU to double or nothing (Score:2)
Microsoft's EU Dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
Phrase of the day (Score:2, Funny)
That really is fantastic (in both senses). Microsoft have seriously outdone themselves with that one. An upside-down toilet would be technologically innovative and about as much use as one of their communication protocols. At least it made me smile.
No one will agree with me... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - ho
There is a reason (Score:3)
It is very disturbing that you think that the need to browse the web and play media files by definition means a computer must have IE and WMP.
It's not about a company shipping Windows without IE or WMP. It's about a computer company being able to
To have and have not (Score:2)
Great, but the original point was that the user needs a computer with a browser and a media player. Why are you blinded into thinking windows MUST ship with IE and WMP - even if other choices are also shipped? Why is the choice NOT to ship with that pair just as valid as shipping with Firefox and iTunes?
Re:There is a reason (Score:2)
Sure there is - Firefox is more secure than IE, and iTunes is more popular than WMP as a media player. There still is no reason why that choice cannot be made by the consumer or the computer manufacturer without Microsoft being more than another set of options, instead of an option you have no choice but to have.
Specifically, this story is about the EU's attempt to get
Re:There is a reason (Score:2)
Re:There is a reason (Score:2, Insightful)
"Forcing Microsoft to open it's closed source code, and help it's competitors, and not doing the same thing for every other software development firm, is
Re:No one will agree with me... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
Nope, there are plenty of people who are clueless or who have been fooled by their constant PR campaign of misinformation.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
When was the last time you b
It's the MIcrosoft definition of interoperability. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem. They said:
MS Windows server ===== works with ======> non-MS server OS
They did not say
non-MS OS ====== works with ========> MS Windows server
...and that is exactly the problem that they are being sued for
Don't be fooled by the doublespeak.Re:market success (Score:5, Funny)
Cockroaches are "successful." Rats are "successful." Microsoft is "successful."
(wasn't that clever of me to associate cockroaches and rats with microsoft?)
Re:market success (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players? I think they're hitting way more home runs than they need to.
If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line
Re:market success (Score:3, Insightful)
The government might well decide to have a look at your business practices... If you owned a farm and attempted to buy out, intimidate, and crush your rival farmers, if you then locked down the distribution market with illegal contracts to make it very
Re:market success (Score:2)
Re:market success (Score:2)
Re:market success (Score:2)
They're not punishing them for being good. They're punishing them for not allowing interoperability with their monopoly platform, thereby preventing competing alternatives. When the world's computers are over 90% Microsoft-controlled, that changes things.
Re:market success (Score:2)
Re:market success (Score:2)
Whether or not it is in the public interest. We allow companies to grow because it is generally in the public interest. Western liberal countries provide a far higher standard of living for their population than other nations partly because they allow companies the freedom to provide people with the goods and services that they want. But if a company appears
Re:market success (Score:2)
Absolutely right.
The crime here is the means by which success is achieved. In other words: We would ban the New York Yankees if it turned out they only win because they're all doping as hell.
Antitrust law is like doping rules: There are things you can do that make you stronger and faster, but they're not allowed because both sports and
Re:market success (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:market success (Score:2)
Your argument is absolutely flawed. You're saying capitalism isn't flawed because totalierians make a lot of money. Lets stick up this man. He's made of straw. He's get a big t-shirt called totaliterian. He's baddddddd. He's got horns on his head. Lets burn him and be glad we're not him.
Analysis
Now on to the real analysis, you are saying the rich are just getting richer over the poor. In relative terms, lets say the rich (those that have $ to invest) are investing with returns of 10%. Cut off inflation,
Re:market success (Score:2)
Is the Model T an equal car to what you get today for the same work*hours?
Products are, generally speaking, improving at the same price or staying the same but decreasing in price. That's the part where everybody gets richer. Or if you prefer, the part where you don't need to worry about mass-starvation and can actually employ people to make up fancy wealth-distribution statistics.
Re:market success (Score:2)
Re:market success (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:market success (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not being punished for being successful. The EU didn't say, "Hmm, Microsoft is being successful, let's fine them for that."
The issue is the lack of interoperability documentation with their monopoly platform, which prevents competition from Microsoft's own server products, furthering Microsoft's monopoly. There are laws against that because it's the antithesis of a free market.
Re:market success (Score:2)
But Microsoft has acted like one major bully. On one hand, they use the law (or whatever other means they can that are "legal" to beat their competitors/perceived enemies down. When the tables are finally turned on them, they cry foul.
Imagine your school days, when the biggest prick in the school was the star player of one of
Re:market success (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they're making way more money than they need to. Just like gas companies. Being successful
doesn't make it right.
Comments like yours are the ones that the 'other side' love. Someone who doesn't have the slightest
grasp as to what is going on and makes comments that lead everyone else to believe that you don't have
a grasp on capitalism. The simple fact that a company makes a lot of money doesn't make them bad or
mean that restrictions should be placed on them. The company makes what the market permits, supply
and demand. It's not up to you to say 'they are making too much money', there's no such thing as too
much money (legally).
You're probably one of those people that think the rich should be taxed to death for the simple fact
that they have more money. "You make 1 million dollars a year.. I think we should tax you to death so
you only take on 50k a year!... that is fair in my warped concept of fair".
* Now, to be fair... you may very well have grasp on the facts, in fact I hope you do. Your comment
alone is what I find rediculous, however you'll prolly get mod'd up as 'insightful' based on this
crowd.
Re:market success (Score:2)
As far as the tax thing goes, what cheeses most people is the perception that even though BillG may have a tax bill of $100,000, that there are ways he can offset or even negate a lot of that tax burden or create other ways so that that $100K is about 1% or 0% of his net income for the year.
BillG: "But I paid $100,
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:2)
"This just in, convicted murderer on death row to appeal sentence."
of COURSE they're going to appeal - when you have that much money for lawyers why wouldn't you?
A standard practice these days. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.
And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.
Re:Yeah. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankfully, most of the userbase for those OSs aren't as foolish as your typical Windows one. If Joe Consumer stopped being an idiot on the computer, viruses would just die off because there's be no point (not that most viruses have a point to start). My computer's behind a hardware firewall (read: cheap router) and I don't even view any emails sent by morons, and it works infinitely better than most people who are load
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
And of course, I have no problems being given life lessons by someone with a /. number that's eight hundred thousand below mine. I'll be sure to lose some we
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
Uh, Linux and OS X didn't need to be patched to fix RPC exploit worms that rebooted two-thirds of the world's computers, or database server worms that gave SQL Server the dubious distinction of being the platform for the fastest spreading worm in history. It's not foolish to say OS X and Linux have not needed such patches; it's truthful.
There are plenty more holes in Windows that aren't patched yet, most of them in IE, an
Re:Yeah. (Score:2, Insightful)
The damn SQL worm had a fix for I believe six full months before the worm hit. Not to mention, if the administrators of said SQL boxes followed STANDARD SECURITY PRACTICES, the worm would have had no impact at all.
There are plenty of holes in Linux and MacOS X too, some of them in browsers, some of them in other places, some of them critical, some of them not so critical. Just what point was i
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
Mainly because Linux and OS X - combined - still only represent around 1 in every 20-odd computers.
Even a "perfect storm" of Linux or OS X worms wouldn't have anything close to the impact of a relatively low-key Windows worm. There's simply not enough ma
Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is, at least partially. Microsoft had (have?) a habit of releasing 'new features' with security patches. This meant that the security patches needed careful testing before deployment, since the new features often came free with new bugs that could break existing software. For most other operating systems, the security updates are just that; security updates. If you install a security update for OS X/FreeBSD/whatever, the only things that it should break are programs that made use of the insecurity that is fixed (and you probably want these to break, rather than being exploited, anyway). On Windows, it can be a game of Russian Roulette to patch a running server.
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
And just as much as server maintainers don't patch, it's people on their desktops.
(I could be wrong with my characterisation o
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
The best thing is both blaster and slammer had fixes released well before the worms hit.
...for some versions of Windows that allowed most software to work on those versions.
RPC should never have been running and exposed on a desktop OS in the first place. Basically no services should be running and exposed on a default install of a desktop OS.
It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.
For the most part I agree, but MS has a pretty awful track record of issuing patches that bre
Re:Interoperable my... (Score:2)
No, Microsoft interoperability is much similar to the way every company works. Run a battery of tests against every new version to verify that you didn't break anything.
This of course would require them to operate machines that run Linux, Novel Netware, etc in order to test for true interoperability.
Windows is very much a fluid target point, where the actual operation