Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Says Microsoft Still Not Compliant

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the comply-with-this dept.

339

what about writes "News.com is reporting that the European Union still doesn't consider Microsoft in compliance with its anti-trust ruling." From the article: "Should the Commission issue a final decision against Microsoft, the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued. The Commission may then take additional steps to extend the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the order. The Commission's letter is just the latest action it has taken in the closely watched antitrust case. "

cancel ×

339 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is 2.36 million a day (4, Interesting)

RedHatLinux (453603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894500)

enough of a fine to make breaking the law an unprofitable method of doing business? I doubt it, given how much money Microsoft has saved up.

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (5, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894602)

Microsoft had really better tone itself down for the EU. The EU's not going to let some big American company get pushy, and with the recent news of OSS in Europe, as well as the fact Apple is now #1 in the UK education market (passing Dell at #2), someone at Microsoft needs to just comply with what the EU wants. It's not worth the consequences. Tech is fickle, and just because Microsoft has a huge monopoly now doesn't mean it won't become irrelevant in a month.

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894834)

the fact Apple is now #1 in the UK education market (passing Dell at #2), someone at Microsoft needs to just comply with what the EU wants.

Right, Microsoft doesn't have the power and market share to avoid paying fines for being a...um...powerful monopoly...

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894847)

"Irrelevant in a month"...??? What are you smoking?

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (1)

MCSEBear (907831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894656)

Hopefully the EU will make Microsoft actually release information to let others create client software compatible with their servers. Not just release some information under a license that leaves out open source projects like Samba. Heck, while they are at it they should force Microsoft to open source the Office file formats. They got ahead in office software using thier illegal Windows monopoly too!

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894848)

You mean XML, right? (as this is what Office uses nowadays, which requires about 3MB of text to store a simple 60KB XLS file... but hey, ANYONE can view it now!)

Prostitute Schedule for Mar. 10 at the MBOT in SF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894688)

Folks, check out the updated prostitute schedule [fuckedcompany.com] for March 10 at the Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California. The MBOT is the most convenient way for you to buy a blow job, a hand job, and full service (i.e. vaginal sexual intercourse).

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (5, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894708)

Is 2.36 million a day enough of a fine to make breaking the law an unprofitable method of doing business? I doubt it, given how much money Microsoft has saved up.

Well the article says:

the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued

It's been 85 days since Dec 15, 2005. So that means that the fine would already be $202 million. Microsoft's market cap is $281 bilion [yahoo.com] . So I guess it's not a big % of their budget. On the other hand, this fine represents an "operating cost" of $861 million a year. Paying out a billion dollars a year is not a trivial amount of money, even for MS. It's not so much that they "can't afford it" since they have large reserves of cash (enough to pay off this fine for many years, no doubt)... it's more that investors are not going to be pleased knowing that $1 billion/year is disappearing without any return on it. That will negatively affect stock prices, hence affect Microsoft's ability to operate, compete, etc.

Plus, I would fully expect the EU to increase the daily fine if this went on for a long time. I'm sure other laws would come into play also, based on Microsoft's obvious ignoring of rulings. They could be ordered to stop doing business in the EU altogether. After all, if they are unwilling to comply with this legal directive, then who knows what others laws they might ignore. You can't afford to have rogue companies operating in your countries!

So I think MS will have to take this fine seriously, one way or another.

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894933)

Also worth noting: Microsoft may be "worth" $281 billion, but their net income [yahoo.com] is "only" $13 billion/year. So a fine of this sort would be 0.86/13 = 6.6% of their annual income. That's a significant loss of profit for any company. Shareholders would be furious.

Re:Is 2.36 million a day (4, Insightful)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895003)

[QUOTE]it's more that investors are not going to be pleased knowing that $1 billion/year is disappearing without any return on it. [/QUOTE]

The return is in that they can stunt competition - they desperately do not want competitors to be able to interoperate otherwise they risk losing their monopoly. If there were truly no return, then they would have made the change shortly after the initial request.

LetterRip

For 2.36 million I'd consider breaking the law too (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894807)

If all I had to do was say someone wasn't serving me well enough, in order to take 2.36 million from them, I'd consider it.

May be risky, but... (1, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894510)

EU wants to play hardball? If they're smart, Microsoft could REALLY play this off to their advantage, making themselves look like a victim and getting the EU to back down.

Stop selling products in Europe.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.

Make sure that each step of the way, you tell a sob story about how the EU is making it impossible to exist in that market, therefore you're pulling out. Can you imagine the backlash as suddenly no companies can get support, or no users can buy a computer with Windows installed?

Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.

Re:May be risky, but... (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894550)

I have to disagree. There is already a strong movement in favor of open source in Europe and it is merely the habit of having Microsoft and the pain of switching that prevents them fom moving over sooner than later. To have Microsoft pull out support would only hasten the move. And once Europe goes open source, the rest of their neighbors won't be far behind. Will this affect the U.S. market much? If the U.S.'s speedy change to the metric system is any indication...

Re:May be risky, but... (4, Insightful)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894579)

I agree with you re: opensource, however consider this analogy:
It would be great to get off gasoline- But if gasoline were suddenly unavailable, despite the fact that we could grow corn and use ethanol or walk or whatever (the replacement isn't the issue), the unplanned switchover would be very painful....

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894651)

It is quite possible to purchase a computer system that does not depend on Microsoft products. It is not, however, possible to purchase a car that does not run on gasoline or diesel fuel. If Microsoft quits selling products in Europe, someone else will take their place.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894690)

I don't disagree, but I would point out the fact that that In Brazil nearly three-quarters of new cars can burn either ethanol or gasoline, whichever happens to be available. money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/news/economy/biofuel_fort une_020606/
My diesel truck will run on many differnt biofuels.
In fact, a large percent of cars sold in the US are flex fuel....

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895030)

All true. The problem here in the US is that a lot of people aren't aware of why their Taurus or whatever (many of the FFVs that are visibly badged are Fords) has a little picture of corn on it. (Ethanol is often distilled from corn).

And then the further problem is that most stations only sell conventional gasoline or diesel. If more stations sold E85, more people might choose to use that fuel.

Re:May be risky, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894873)

I agree with you re: opensource, however consider this analogy:
It would be great to get off gasoline- But if gasoline were suddenly unavailable, despite the fact that we could grow corn and use ethanol or walk or whatever (the replacement isn't the issue), the unplanned switchover would be very painful....


It is the 'unplanned' part that would invoke the most pain. Not that they would lose their licenses overnight, so this is debateable. The relearning also would hurt, but this pain would depend heavily on what was used before. A company that uses Word for 90% of its business could switchover relatively painlessly in a short period of time.

Microsoft today is relying on the fact that most every day people don't know the merits or even the existance of alternatives to MS. Once you get a fairly good market share, it's the beginning of the end for microsoft. So, if anything, microsoft must try to keep people from even considering the use of an alternative platform. You could say the same about oil companies. It's kinda funny we don't have alternative fuel by now. ;)

Unfortunantly, for your average person, linux is still a well kept secret.

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894968)

They can't even do this once.

After one time of denying service, businesses can not afford to commit to them again because now there is a risk they will do it again. You have a fiscal obligation to avoid/mitigate such risks when you run a business.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894657)

That's the idea right there - completely drive home the pain of switching by making it something they have to deal with on a time frame. What better way to make people appreciate you than by showing how things get more difficult when you're not there (even if it is just a temporary learning period). Absence makes the heart grow fonder, right?

For home users, they'd have to deal with the fact that most of the software they have won't work on another OS (and some of the hardware, too), and also that they'd have to learn another OS altogether. Now, this may not be a big deal for you or I to work through, but Joe Public gets thrown off switching from IE to Firefox - can you imagine trying to get them to switch an OS? Complete frustration, and cries of "Why the bloody hell can't I just use Windows like I always have?!"

Businesses would also have to deal with the fact that most of the software they have won't work on another OS, except they'll be much more angry as they spent HUGE amounts of money on that software in the first place, and I'm sure many of them have custom applications that are Windows-only. They would lose a ton of time and money switching over to a new OS, both from purchasing new software and also productivity losses while users are trained.

Right now, people are addicted to Microsoft's software. They can use that to their advantage. The analogy that another reply made to gasoline is absolutely perfect.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894700)

Oh... and you think the EU would't do something such as declaring all Microsoft software as public domain to all European citizens and companies operating in Europe until such time that they could migrate to OSS? I think they would especially if Microsoft refuses to pay their fine.

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894787)

Like Microsoft would do that?

I agree that it would hurt Microsoft's image in Europe but it would also hurt the EU's image and many politicians would lose their job. Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch.

These offices pay in the form of lobbying particular politicians to office. If the EU's anticompetitive commision grows any balls then heads will roll and people will be fired until it finds employees friendly to Microsoft. Just look at what happened in the US when ms lobbied heavily when it was on trial?

Either way its suicide for the EU and Microsoft just may win. It will have a black eye in the short term but in the long term it will get what it wants by playing chicken.

Re:May be risky, but... (4, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894809)

Actually this would be great for the US. Let European corporations figure out how to effectively switch away from MS, and then we can just swoop in and adopt the finished product.

Re:May be risky, but... (5, Insightful)

OfF3nSiV3 (805526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894553)

MS can't leave Europe because it makes much more than a couple millions a day.. and it can't deny support for european users as when they sell a product they commit to support it

Re:May be risky, but... (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894560)

Stop selling products in Europe.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.


      Which would only underline the EU's point.

Can you imagine the backlash

      Yes I can, but I think this backlash would not quite be in the same direction as you think. In fact, it would be the worst thing Microsoft could ever do. I know I would certainly boycott a company that thought it was above the law.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894692)

a company that thought it was above the law.

To keep playing devil's advocate, don't the people create the law in these societies? If this is what the people demand, shouldn't the law reflect that?

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

nx (194271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894926)

don't the people create the law in these societies?

"The people" do not create laws; elected officials do. The discrepancy between what the elected officials do and what the people want can sometimes be very great.

Sometimes a law is created as a response to public demand. This is usually defined either by general debate in the media - in which case public opinion usually represents a small elite - or by polling, in which case public opinion is a reflection of how the question was asked (and who wanted the answers).

Sometimes a law is created as a response to demand from special interests, otherwise known as lobbying. Draconic copyright laws are the epitome example.

Sometimes a law is created to oppose the public view, to steer the public "the right way". E.g., if a certain type of harmful behaviour increases in a society, harsher laws may be implemented as a deterrent.

And sometimes, I suspect, laws are created because the elected officials have nothing better to do. Public choice theory, and all that.

Before this completely goes OT, and to answer your question: no, not necessarily.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895022)

Well, I meant in a more roundabout manner - as in the elected officials create the laws, but who elects those officials?

I think lobbying would work to MS's advantage here - the amount of corporate lobbying for the EU to back off would be huge, since so many companies would be adversely affected.

Ideally, though, I would like a society in which the public directly votes on all issues, but part of me says that it wouldn't work anyway, as nobody cares enough to vote.

Re:May be risky, but... (1, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894733)

The corporate outcry would be tremendous. The EU would cave in. I almost %100 guarantee it. It works so well in the states.

For example the EPA was GE's number one enemy for years as it freely dumped pcb's into the Hudson river. So what did GE do after all their appeals ran out? They threaten to leave state and remove 10,000 jobs with them. The politicians would lose their jobs from the mob of angry voters and other businesses would suffer.

So they caved in. GE stopped polluting and uncle sam is now paying the bill to clean up their problem.

Same is true with Microsoft. Many in the EU hate big government (not nearly as much as in the US) and will become angry that they can not go into a bestbuy and buy their system of their dreams and run Microsoft Office. Businesses reliant on windows with custom vb apps need windows on their desktop or they will go out of business. They too will have a riot and can any politician who dares get in the way of microsoft.

Hate to say it but Microsoft clearly has the upperhand as much as I would like to see htem punished. They are not stupid and they have corporate europe and consumers by the balls.

Re:May be risky, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894947)

If Microsoft stops selling their products in the EU, there will immediately open a gray market with (legal!) imports from eastern Europe, or the US and Canada. The only ones who'd suffer would be the users in countries where the local language isn't spoken anywhere outside the EU, because they would proabaly not be able to source their localized Windows/Office anywhere else, but I think that would be the minority. English for UK and IE is available in US and CA, french in CA and CH, spanish and portugese in various south american countries (there might be differences...) german and italian from CH. Essentially this may leave the netherlands, belgium, denmark, poland, finland, sweden, greece, hungary, slovakia, slovenia and the baltic states without access to localized Microsoft Software, which isn't even 1/3 of the population. For some of them it may be quite painful as Open Source Software may have only rudimentary support for some of the less common languages.

Additionally, Microsoft can't just close their local subsidiaries from one day to the next, they'll have to continue paying salaries and rent for their employees if they ever plan to restart their operations (and still for months or years even if they didn't). Furthermore Microsoft itself is bound by contracts to supply their distributors, all the large computer manufacturers as well as larger companies with support and software for years.

They can't just stop, and even if they tried, it would be extremely expensive, and they wouldn't really achieve anything.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

zmower (20335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894924)

The repercussions of withdrawl from the EU would be immense. And not just in the EU. Governments all over the world would start sweating and looking for alternatives. Opensource take-up would rocket. Reverse engineering firms would spring up like weeds in Europe.

MS have to feed their ecosystem. Cutting off blood to the left leg leads to instability!

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894562)

"Stop selling products in Europe."

Yay! I'd actually be very happy about that decision. Anyone who uses windows for home mostly pirates it here, but the government would be forced to not buy the overpriced Windows any more (The government here also bought windows licenses for everyone in higher education - they could axe that too!).

Hurray for EU!

Re:May be risky, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14895047)

Windows costs 15 bucks, or less, and is everywhere. The ultrasound machines in hospitals, those run on windows. Microsoft being kicked out of europe would have a punishing effect on global trade, as US retaliation would be certain, and preceed a round of further retaliations. More over all the economic burden that Microsoft shoulders suddenly landing in the lap of all the customers who weren't expecting it. Remember they'll have to keep using windows for the rest of the world, it's what their customers know and expect. Effectively Europe will be punishing European companies demanding they produce new product lines from scratch overnight. While encouraging a tradewar.

Re:May be risky, but... (5, Interesting)

DataCannibal (181369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894565)

Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.

yes, imagine the backlash as thousands of companies in Europe start suing Microsoft for breach of contract when MS refuses them support. That ought to go down well with the shareholders.

+5 insightful, fuck off! This guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Informative)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894570)

Describing that as risky is a gross understatement. Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot very badly by trying that approach. Europeans would soon discover how to survive in a Microsoft-free environment, which would lose Microsoft a big market for good. Even worse, it would ensure that there would be a huge group of ITS people skilled in moving from Microsoft to the alternatives and prove to anyone who doubted that life without Microsoft is possible. That's the absolute last thing they want.

In agreement (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894623)

1. 200 non-MS-related companies would spring up in 1 week, and they would offer tolerable support of all versions of windows. Maybe not "inner circle" type support but do most people really get that anyway?
2. There would be about a 100-million-person case study confirming that ... um ... Windows is not absolutely essential to your business, organization, or government.

In other words, please please do this, bill.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894900)

Europeans would soon discover how to survive in a Microsoft-free environment

Would they? The gamble here is on the nature of people - are most people willing to actually put forth effort towards something, or will they just look for a quick fix? I'd be willing to put my money on the latter. People are lazy, and would rather whine until the situation gets changed than change themselves.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

LurkerML (668881) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894979)

Would they? The gamble here is on the nature of people - are most people willing to actually put forth effort towards something, or will they just look for a quick fix? I'd be willing to put my money on the latter. People are lazy, and would rather whine until the situation gets changed than change themselves.

Well, it's not like the already sold software ceases to exist. Home users would have a year or more until Vista is out and they would have to think about it.

Re:May be risky, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894571)

Strong claims for a person that is not directly benefiting from microsoft's business practices. A few problems:

1) Stock holders would have a fit.
2) Apple and Open source would have a party.
3) Credibility.
4) RMS would become a prophet about proprietary software.
5) Wouldn't make much a differance to end users, they'll probably pirate MS products til they manage a switch.
6) Software companies in general wont leave the EU market because microsoft wants to be a cowboy. So that means porting apps to the mac and/or linux. Games included. This would be a global spanking for MS..
7) I could go on. Point being, you don't drop an atomic bomb like that without severe consequences...

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Interesting)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894576)

That would be more that risky, it would be suicide.

Everybody in EU would start looking for altenatives to Windows and some of them would even find better solutions than what the had with windows.

And for those who would'nt find an avaiable replacement that meets their requiement there would be hundreads of companies in EU that pops up to provide them with one.

That would be very good for the EU , open source software and Apple and realy bad for Microsoft

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894712)

Everybody in EU would start looking for altenatives to Windows

I think you overestimate people. In my experience, most people are too reluctant to change, they'd rather complain endlessly than actually do things that require effort.

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Insightful)

wintermute42 (710554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894588)

As you note, such a move is risky. Rather than angry pitchfork carrying crowds forcing the Eurocrats in Brussels to stop their cruel treatment of the underdog of Redmond, what could happen is that people would adopt other solutions, like Linux or the Mac.

Given my own love hate relationship with Linux, I don't see lots of non-technical users jumping on the Penguin waggon in the near future. But a move by Microsoft to pull out of the European market would force current Microsoft users to think of Microsoft as an unreliable supplier. This could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. Even if this possible future is overblown, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their stock holders might revolt before the European users. Even Chairman Bill can be deposed if there are enough unhappy stock holders.

In the end it all sounds like a game of "chicken". The Eurocrats are threatening Microsoft and Microsoft is threatening, at least implicitly, to take their jacks and go home. We'll see which side blinks. My bet is that Microsoft will play hardball, but will cut a deal.

Re:May be risky, but... (4, Insightful)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894595)

Doing that would be the single biggest (and stupidest) gamble Microsoft would have ever taken. Not only do they stand to lose *all* of the business in the EU for the duration of their "protest," but if the protest backfired and they looked further like scum, they stand to *also* pay the fine. Not to mention their competitors (apple, IBM, Sun, Red Hat) would gain significant mindshare. It may even prove to the EU that Microsoft is not only an abusive Monopoly, but one that must be dismantled at all costs. If there's any political pressure that might result in a US government imposed MS breakup, it would be from the EU.

Most of all, if I was a business relying on a software vendor that one day decided to halt support to prove a political point, that would be the day I fire up the installer for their competitors.

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Interesting)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894597)

I would hope the EU wants MS to do all of this:
  • Stop selling products in Europe.
  • Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
  • Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.

IF the EU want to make Open source solutions more palatable, then this is Yet another way to stop the population from paying the MS tax.

Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.

People should not get angry, just stop being so simply, when there are alternatives. And don't forget IBM is all ready there to support the change. Check it out [slashdot.org]

They are the victim (0, Troll)

Cornswalled (958023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894647)

Don't be snowballed in all of this. Microsoft is being railroaded, because the EU is scared of having an American company producing the software that runs 99% of the West's business operations. It's all about trying to get a slice of the pie. Once they saw how MS got railroaded by the US on the Monopoly charges, they rubbed their hands with glee and started concocting ways to get their own slice of sweet, sweet Microsoft money. The bottom line is, as long as MS is selling software in the EU, the EU will be going after MS. If they stop selling in the EU, the EU will sue them for discrimination, and strum up some charges based on "Anti European" strategies. It's all about attacking the wealthy, unpopular guy because they know the masses will support them in lock step.

Re:They are the victim (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894754)

If they stop selling in the EU, the EU will sue them for discrimination, and strum up some charges based on "Anti European" strategies.

Thus giving Microsoft more "they're picking on us!" propaganda ammunition.

"Look, guys, they're forcing us to do business here, but then fining us for doing it!"

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Interesting)

Voltageaav (798022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894667)

If they do that, it opens room for Open Source and other competitors to move in. It would be kind of risky for them to do that. I think at this point, they have more to lose by not complying than trying to fight it. $2.36 Million a day. They may have tons of moeny, but that adds up quick and they have other investments to think about as well. As of today, that's 200 million and counting. With legal proceedings lasting as long as they do, this could turn out to be quite a big fine.

Poor Microsoft! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894746)

Microsoft only has $40 billion cash in the bank... that means if this keeps up, then in a mere 47 years, Microsoft will be out of cash!

Re:May be risky, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894674)

>EU wants to play hardball? If they're smart, Microsoft could REALLY play this off to >their advantage, making themselves look like a victim and getting the EU to back down.

About 20 years ago I went into a library and out of the corner of my eye I saw
a headline of a British newspaper from 1901 that caught my attention.

The headline read:
"Storm in English Channel cuts off Europe from Britain"

I laughed when I saw that because it demonstrated the inherent arrogance of
that journalist's perspective on relative value.

Your comment is just like that headline. Let's consider some facts shall we?
1) Microsoft is a US based corporation.
2) Microsoft employs what 60,000? 80,000 people?
3) Last time I checked the EU contained over 300 million people.

THE EU is playing hardball?!?!
No my friend, I don't think so.
I think Microsoft is playing a game of chicken
because that's the only game they know how to play.
They think that if they threaten to take away their
marbles that the EU will cave in. That has worked
in the past (in the US), but I think the EU is
getting sick and tired of being treated as a second
fiddle to the US and they have no loyalty to Microsoft.

No, I think Microsoft is about to discover that the
EU doesn't play by Microsoft's rules.

--- Johnny

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894699)

Do you really think that we need Microsoft half as much as they need us?

So say it happened, and no-one in Europe could buy Windows or Office.

So what? We'd all just copy them. How could it be copyright infringement? They're not available for sale, after all, so what money would they be losing? Yes, I realise that that's not quite how it works, but in such a situation how many EU governments would care?

Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.

Yes, because that worked so well for the Iraq war. A million people marched in London, yet our troops are still there.

Besides, people wouldn't get angry about this. Oh sure, they'd moan and they'd grumble, but *everyone* knows *someone* who'd be able to get their hands on a cracked copy of Windows and Office. Most people don't bother because there's no need - most people get Windows preinstalled on new PCs and never need a new copy. Were that to change, there'd just be a whole lot more pirated copies in use.

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Insightful)

Urusai (865560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894730)

Many businesses talk about taking their ball and going home, but invariably they cave in. Always. I can't think of a single business that actually tried, much less succeeded in, a boycott when profits were at stake.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894805)

Can you imagine the backlash as suddenly no companies can get support, or no users can buy a computer with Windows installed?

Support, maybe. But it just sounds like a great excuse to pirate Windows to me. "I had to steal it, there isn't any way to buy it in the whole E.U., and I wanted to!"

Re:May be risky, but... (3, Insightful)

Svippy (876087) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894816)

As already explained, this would be the worst move Microsoft could make - exactly why they don't.

Microsoft knows the European market is a big market, and if they removed themselves, they would meet resistance in other parts of the world as well.

Why? There are some main reasons other systems than Windows is not so much in use, one of the main one is the application barrier, most applications works under the Windows platform, but not on others.

If Microsoft closes its doors in Europe, third party application makers would quickly start porting their applications to Linux among other systems, since it would be the only that made sense.

This would most likely lead to other people doing the same in other parts of the world, cause 350 million people is not a small market.

No, Microsoft cannot do anything but follow the EU's requirements or they may pay with their "life".

Re:May be risky, but... (2, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894827)

Stop selling products in Europe.

This would result in two things: a surge in non-Microsoft tools (Wordperfect, Lotus, OpenOffice, etc.) and a large grey-market where copies are "illegally" imported from other venues.

Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Please do. And please advertise it in advance. Is there anyone in Europe who could help me migrate over there and set up a Microsoft tech support office? Of course, I'm quite positive many enterprizing Europeans will be salivating at the idea of doing that themselves.

Backlash? No support? Are you kidding me? Microsoft, if they were insane enough to do that, would face the real threat of Europe NOT LETTING THEM BACK IN when they realized how bad they screwed up. Can you imagine what that would do to their market share? The word "plummet" comes to mind.

  -Charles

Re:May be risky, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894852)

Stop selling products in Europe.

Oh yes... please.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

LurkerML (668881) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894919)

Microsoft has contracts with companies, not with the EU.

Those corporates will sue Microsoft into last week if they do not live up to their contractual obligations. And after the companies have (had to) changed to other software, it would be a lost market for Microsoft.

Same with the gas, show people that something doesn't work and watch how much work they put into alternatives to get away from it.
Nobody forgets if you try to win something on their back and not on your own.

Re:May be risky, but... (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894976)

I agree. EU is just trying to show they aren't big wusses. Let them all go OSS and when the people want M$ back...tell them no. If EU wants to try to nickle and dime M$ outta money, let them try. I would tell them to piss off.

The Borg (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894515)

The immense knowledge of all the assimilated Borg minds function as one. Resistance is futile!

Obligatory Simpsons (0, Offtopic)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894521)

Mr Burns: "Smithers, my wallet is in my front pocket."

Re:Obligatory Simpsons (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894582)

They need to just start handing out 100million dollar a day fines and if MS attempts to fight it or not pay... start seizing assets.

Re:Obligatory Simpsons (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894704)

Burns: What!? Blast his hide to Hades! [thunder roars outside]
                          And I was going to buy that ivory back-scratcher...

Wrist-slapping (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894542)

Still just a slap on the wrist until they actually get Microsoft to end its anti-competitive practices [msversus.org] . The day a government actually gets Microsoft to change its corporate conduct is the day I'll applaud.

Re:Wrist-slapping (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894592)

Can you say obsessed? You post that link on every MS story it seems. You should get a life, and that site should get some new info.

Re:Wrist-slapping (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894676)

I spent years gathering info on Microsoft for a major NY financial firm. It's not an obsession. I was paid. Posting a relevant link to a /. article is never a bad thing.

Re:Wrist-slapping (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894697)

You underestimate the power of a minor punishment in an antitrust conviction. The problem in the US (and I am assuming in the EU as well, but IANAL) is called nonmutual collateral estoppel and basically ensures that once Microsoft is convicted of an antitrust violation, it becomes much easier for competitors to prove antitrust violations. This leads to an army of lawyers enforcing antitrust law.

Microsoft would have been better off had they been broken up. Now, they are just bleeding in shark infested waters....

Re:Wrist-slapping (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894728)

My understanding is that in the EU they've already been found guilty. This is a fine for further non-compliance, which I imagine would have little bearing on other lawsuits. Although I suppose if they're fined some of their competitors can claim they were the ones affected and it may help their lawsuits. I dunno.

Re:Wrist-slapping (2, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894987)

I probably shouldhave been more specific about nonmutual collateral estoppel in the US. Basically, any fact which is determined as a necessary part of one law suit cannot be relitigated in the next one. IANAL, though.

So in USDoJ v. Microsoft, as a necessary part of that lawsuit, it was determined that Microsoft had market power in the operating systems markets, and that they had illegally maintained this market power. This was necessary to determine that there was a Sherman Act violation.

So now, with Novell v. Microsoft, Novell can use as a part of their evidence the fact that Microsoft has market power in the operating systems markets and that they have abused this power to illegally maintain their monopoly. And although this is tangental to Novell's case (involving WordPerfect), Microsoft is not allowed to contest those facts. Thus it makes it far easier for Novell to prove their case. Should it go to trial and Novell win, then that would add more to the ball of wax and make it even harder for Microsoft to win future antitrust suits.

I am assuming that it works a similar way in the EU.

Re:Wrist-slapping (2, Interesting)

tshak (173364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894953)

Still just a slap...

No, it's still extortion. I know the typical /. mantra is that MS did evil by adding features to their OS without adding cost. I know that people believe it's black-and-white antitrust for giving huge discounts to OEM's for volume license agreements in which all machines sold had Windows instead of some niche OS that has zero relevance to the OEM's marketshare. But the reality is that governemnt should never have this much heavy handed control over business, and the EU is essentially stealing US dollars on the backs of the underdogs. Do you really think the consumer or BeOS will get a dime of this? Please. Keep the government out of this. IBM switching to Linux and Apple taking on the home market are all I need to see that we have a healthy and competitve marketplace without government intervention.

Re:Wrist-slapping (1)

Luctius (931144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895027)

The fact is, that microsoft knew the rules of the EU. Whether or not the goverment should have that power is a completly different debate (and my answer would be yes). If they did not like the rules, they should not do business in the EU.

Budget Filler? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894603)

I'm all for insuring Microsoft plays fair but come on, it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.

Several of the US states (CA in particular) seem to see Microsoft as a way of making some extra money as well.

If the Linux bubble proved anything it is Windows is actually a pretty good product and despite thousands of Linux distros and tens of millions of dollars being spent over the last 5 years the average person still uses Windows.

There are plenty of options today, Mac Mini's are available and affordable, Powerbook prices will be coming down, there are tends of very mature desktop Linux distros.

In today's world the computer user has plenty of choices, you shouldn't penalize a company because they choose to use the major player. There is no question MS should be penalized if they break the law but we shouldn't fine a company just because they are the major player or because they can afford it.

Just another example of politics.

Re:Budget Filler? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894635)

I'm all for insuring Microsoft plays fair but come on, it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.

How so? If Microsoft had just complied with the law two or three years ago when this issue first arose, the EU wouldn't be making any money at all. The EU has given Microsoft so many chances to avoid this fine that it is sickening. Microsoft has purposefully turned all of those chances away.

Re:Budget Filler? (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894671)

"There is no question MS should be penalized if they break the law but we shouldn't fine a company just because they are the major player or because they can afford it."

Would fining a company because they broke the law be okay with you?

Re:Budget Filler? (1)

chris macura (899109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894820)

It depends on the law.

Re:Budget Filler? (1)

Luctius (931144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894843)

Actually, which law thus not matter for the fact that they need to be punished. The amount of punishment would be. And it is.

Re:Budget Filler? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894706)

not least because all that money has to come from somewhere, i.e. the consumer. This is really just an attempt to tax the people of Europe (and the world) for buying Microsoft, in a roundabout sort of a way. The consumer will still buy microsoft, and they will still stump up whatever's asked for it. This won't hurt Microsoft one bit, mark my words.

Re:Budget Filler? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894803)

Microsoft Should not only be fined daily as a Monopoly. They should no longer be able to sell their products in the EU until they comply.

Re:Budget Filler? (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894822)

it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.

Not really. The EU courts handed out a ruling. Microsoft did not comply. It's embarassing that the EU has to resort to daily fines to get Microsoft to comply with the law, but that's the only way to force a company to take the law seriously.

Re:Budget Filler? (3, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894930)

we shouldn't fine a company just because they are the major player or because they can afford it.

Except that Microsoft is a near monopoly and is playing dirty to avoid stop being the major player.

The Commission is asking Microsoft to DO-CU-MENT some things - propietary protocols used by windows clients like printing, networking etc. The commission is fining Microsoft because no matter how hard they try, Microsoft is NOT documenting anything.

The Commission wouldn't have to fine Microsoft if they didn't behave that way, in first place. Other companies haven't been able to compete with Microsoft for decades. Not because they don't know to create great products, but because Microsoft uses propietary protocols and tricks.

Why do you think Microsoft is selling so many windows servers? Is not that solaris & friends are bad server operative systems. Microsoft integrates clients with their servers using dirty tricks so no other server operating system on earth can integrate so tightly with windows clients as windows server does. Even if a company wants to compete, they CANT.

The commission is asking microsoft to document some things so other companies can compete as God intended. They're not asking them to give up their market share - they can continue being top 1 by creating good products - they're just forcing Microsoft to give opportunities to other companies. Microsoft is doing the impposible to avoid it, because they know sun, ibm, redhat etc. can build GREAT products which can put Windows server in shame, and they're not going to allow it if they can avoid it. I'm HAPPY Europe is doint this with Microsoft, the legal American system tried to do the same in the past but failed. Someone had to do it.

One clear point here (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894675)

The EU courts ruled that they need to supply the information to competitors. They did not say commercial competitors. They did not say they could change a fee for it. (One could argue that they didn't say they couldn't but that's just bullsit weaseling that they won't get away with.) But to stipulate that the license on the information is that it could not be released to the public is 100% wrong and against the demands of the EU courts.

"Competitors" can and does include commercial, for-profit and non-profit competition alike. Whatever organization that is "Samba" along with whatever organization that is "OpenOffice" and whatever organization that is "Ximian" all qualify in this regard as far as I can tell.

Frankly, this is kind of fun to watch Microsoft in this losing battle. They are attempting to play this the way they played it in the U.S. and these people AREN'T Americans and probably dislike American companies... especially arrogant ones like Microsoft.

I just wonder if I will have to wait until Christmas to get my presents...

Re:One clear point here (0, Offtopic)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894736)

the fack that real player is one of the competitors that wants this.. make it two way..

make real player open up their info too.. seems only fair

thay way i can get it off my wifes system once and for all and prevent it from ever geting reinstalled

MS could try playing the victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894682)

BUT if they do and stop sales/support in Europe that may not be a bad thing. Seeing how Europe in general is embracing OSS for Gov't and schools it may be a boon for widespread corporate acceptance as well. Hey I can dream right?

Re:MS could try playing the victim (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894978)

MS could try playing the victim

Hmmm that reminds me of a famous quote.

"Bu-but your honor... I swear! He-man and those Masters of the Universe keep pushing me around! They take my freedom away! (pouts) "

- Skeletor

No surprise. (3, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894691)

News.com is reporting that the European Union still doesn't consider Microsoft in compliance with its anti-trust ruling.

Based upon recent Microsoft diversionary tactics (publicising the documents, filing suit in the US, etc.), it was evident that Microsoft knew they weren't complying with the ruling. That is why Micorosft was trying to divert everyone's attention to other matters.

A nontrivial penalty (5, Insightful)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894714)

Many posters are claiming that this is not enough to make a real difference to MS, but I disagree. $2.36 million per day is not chump change.

Microsoft's revenues are ~$40 billion annually, leading to a ~$13 billion profit. $2.36 million per day is $861 million per year, or 6% of Microsoft's yearly profits. While it won't kill them, figures like that are enough to make investors (and their lawsuit-happy lawyers) sit up and take notice.

It's also important to realize that this will only be the beginning. If MS continues to flout the EU's penalties, they will only get stiffer. In a fight between a multinational corporation and a multinational government, I'm betting on the EU this time.

The real problem with this is... (-1, Troll)

AndyboyH (837116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894818)

...I bet the actual citizens of the EU won't see a 0.01 of any actual money the EU fines. It would be lost in administration and red tape and a lot of the BS that the EU is famed for. Rather than giving back to the people that Microsoft wronged.

Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft?

Re:The real problem with this is... (2, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894862)

Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft?

The same thing that would happen if YOU lost a lawsuit and refused to pay. You assets would be seized to pay off the debt.

  -Charles

Re:The real problem with this is... (1)

nudeatom (740966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894878)

Yes Microsoft are NOT above the law.

Re:The real problem with this is... (1, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894884)

...I bet the actual citizens of the EU won't see a 0.01 of any actual money the EU fines.

True, but the whole purpose of the fines is to force Microsoft to do something that's in the interest of all the citizens who use MS products. If the fines do as they're intended then not only will EU citizens be better off, but ultimitely all users of MS products around the world will be better off.

Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft?

I doubt that'd happen as well. If MS were to refuse it could result in economic and political ramifications between the EU and the US. Bottom line is that MS could get pressure from the US government to pay up. Beyond that, MS undoubtedly has interests (offices, software inventory, etc) in the EU that could be targeted for siezure in an extreme case. And if they were stupid enough to let it go that far you can imagine what sort of response that would get from other countries where MS has interests.

Dollar (Euro) Amount? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894956)

Hypothetically, what would a good estimate of the actual damages suffered by the people that Microsoft wronged?

Re:The real problem with this is... (2, Interesting)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894966)

For the EU citizens, the point is not that the fines will lower their taxes. The point is that the fines will force MS to publish the specifications of their functions and/or protocols, so that other outfits (commercial and free) can write stuff that works as well with Windows as Microsoft's own stuff does.

This way MS can't do the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" business to anybody ever again. This means that they have to actually compete, rather than driving app vendors out of business with OS tricks. This means more choice and lower prices for EU computer customers. That's the point.

And if MS refuses to pay, then the EU can start grabbing MS assets in Europe - like maybe the Irish operation that MS uses to hide money from US taxes? Or is Ireland not part of the EU? (Should check, but I'm lazy.) The EU could also block MS from selling in the EU, which, since it's about a third of their business, and MS's annual income is about $40 billion, would amount to about a $13 billion fine. No, I think Microsoft will pay, grumbling loudly to the press all the while...

Maybe EU is getting all MS have... :) (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894877)

Taeus' report describes various parts of the documentation as "entirely inadequate" and "self-contradictory," according to the Commission statement. "Taeus concludes that Microsoft's documentation was written 'primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information.'"

Microsoft, however, contends it has gone above and beyond industry requirements for documentation.


LOL, MS may actually speak the truth, and "inadequate" and "self-contradictory" may exactly be what the technical docs are. :-)

EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (-1, Flamebait)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894883)

This is a money grabbing shakedown that would've made Kafka proud. Don't tell the accused why he is "not compliant" just declare that he isn't. No matter what Microsoft provides, the EU will say that they're not complying. To ensure this, they don't even bother to tell Microsoft what's wrong with what they've provided because they don't want Microsoft to be able to comply.

EU: We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines.

MS: OK, here's 12000 pages of documentation.

EU: It's not good enough.

MS: What's wrong with it? What parts are unclear?

EU: That's for us to know and you to find out. You're still facing massive fines.

MS: OK, we don't know what your problem is with the documents, but we'll now offer 500 free hours of tech support to any dev that doesn't understand the documents.

EU: Not good enough. You're still facing massive fines.

MS: OK, we still don't now why you can't understand the documents, but we now offer the source code to those devs that can't get this stuff to work even after reading the documents and getting 500 free hours of tech support.

EU: Not good enough. You're still facing fines.

MS:How about telling us exactly what's wrong with the documents so we can address the problems?

EU (with euro-signs dancing in their eyes): As we said before, the problems with the documents are for us to know and you to find out. Prepare to be fined.

Re:EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (1)

Luctius (931144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894931)

Because Microsoft knows full well what is wrong.

Re:EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (3, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894942)

they don't even bother to tell Microsoft what's wrong with what they've provided

Yes, they have. The EU said that Microsoft had to provide complete and accurate reference documentation of API's, etc. so that third party developers would be able to make use of it. Microsoft said "rather than that, we'll make the source code available so those third parties can see exactly what our code does".

As someone who has developed software professionaly for ten years I can tell you that there's a HUGE difference between source code and documented API's and data structures. Trying to figure out what a complex function does just by looking at source code is extremely difficult. With something as complex as Windows it'd be virtually impossible. Having access to the source code would just be a huge waste of time & money. Having access to accurately documented API's would be a godsend to MS competitors.

Not to mention the fact that in TFA it states that a company hired to reverse engineer some of the MS code in order to validate the documentation they DID provide found the documentation to be "self-contradictory".

Re:EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (1)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895050)

Not to mention the fact that in TFA it states that a company hired to reverse engineer some of the MS code in order to validate the documentation they DID provide found the documentation to be "self-contradictory".


Well, duh. It took me all of two weeks working with MFC (way back when) to figure that out.

Re:EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14894980)

They have a hidden agenda. They want money back from what Hitler started in WW2. Obviously printing more money is a bad idea, so siphoning it from U.S. businesses was the next best idea.

Re:EU wants the cash no matter what MS does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14895025)

As fun as your parody is, it goes both ways:

EU: We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines.

MS: OK, here's 12000 pages of some papers we had lying around. It has nothing to do with what you are looking for. It should do.

EU: It's not good enough.

MS: What's wrong with it? What parts are unclear?

EU: We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines. People we are talking to say this is unacceptable.

MS: MS: OK, we don't know what your problem is with the documents, but we'll now offer 500 free hours of tech support to any dev that doesn't understand the irelative trash we sent out.

EU: Not good enough. You're still facing massive fines. We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines. People we are talking to say this is unacceptable.

MS: OK, we still don't now why you can't understand the documents, but we now offer the source code to those devs (with a small fee and they have to sign an agreement that they can't develop a competing product) that can't get this stuff to work even after reading the documents and getting 500 free hours of tech support.

EU: Not good enough. You're still facing fines. We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines. People we are talking to say this is unacceptable.

MS:How about telling us exactly what's wrong with the documents so we can address the problems?

EU (with euro-signs dancing in their eyes): They are random trash you where throwing out anyway. You're dragging your feet. Prepare to be fined.

Rate me down, but I'm so sick of the EU (-1, Flamebait)

Xenious (24845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14894960)

Ok I realize we are supposed to hate MS here, but you know what? I'm sick of the EU's constant whining. Maybe Bill lined the pockets of the US govt, but MS did things to help resolve this and even did totally stupid things like un-bundle the media player just for the EU. WTF good is an OS without an included media player? I think it is time for the EU to stuff it and move on.

On the topic of bias'..."Yea open source, yea linux, boo windows" is not the answer just the same as the total opposite is not the answer. Each thing is a tool for a solution. I work for one of the largest companies in the world and I think that Windows is rightly our standard desktop. I also think that Linux is ideal for server side solutions as well. Both have their uses. Neither one is perfect.

For the reccord I use Mac's at home, am an Apple and Microsoft shareholder and a US citizen.

TPM (1)

Joe123456 (846782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14895038)

What does the EU say on this and what M$ wants to do with it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>