backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 157 comment(s) - last by non gay europe.. on Jul 31 at 4:15 AM
Another $634M fine to follow if Microsoft does not comply by July 31st

The European Commission today fined Microsoft a whopping $375.4 million for failure to comply with antitrust rulings. The EU had previously fined Microsoft approximately $634.7 million in 2004 for taking advantage of its monopolistic position in the market.

The EU had previously told Microsoft to open up its code as well as open up its Windows operating system to competitors. The amount of the fine comes from the number of days the EU waited for Microsoft to comply. Having violating the ruling since December 16th of 2005 all the way to June 20th of 2006, the EU fined Microsoft at a rate of approximately $1.92 million per day.

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes told reporters that "Microsoft has still not put an end to its illegal conduct. I have no alternative but to levy penalty payments for this continued noncompliance." According to the EU, if Microsoft still does not comply by July 31st of 2006, it will be facing an heavier fine of $3.83 million per day. Microsoft however, says that the fines are unjustified. The company is currently appealing the decision.

Since then, Microsoft has responded to the EU with a public statement claiming "We have great respect for the Commission and this process, but we do not believe any fine, let alone a fine of this magnitude, is appropriate given the lack of clarity in the Commission’s original decision and our good-faith efforts over the past two years. We will ask the European courts to determine whether our compliance efforts have been sufficient and whether the Commission’s unprecedented fine is justified."

DailyTech previously reported that the EU would raise the daily fine cap for Microsoft if it does not comply. The EU decided today that it would penalize Microsoft anyway for the lack of compliancy during the last several months.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good
By Monkmachine on 7/12/06, Rating: 0
Not Good
By qdemn7 on 7/12/2006 7:58:15 AM , Rating: 1
This shows just how far the EU has drifted into Socialism. If I were Gates, I'd tell the EU to F.O. and pull out of the EU completely.

I have less and less respect for the EU every day. They're not embracing the market. The people don't want to work, or else they want the guarantee of a lifetime Government job. They're not even having enough children to replace themselves, yet they still expect their antiquated dinosaur of a social system to keep right on churning out the dole.


RE: Not Good
By Strunf on 7/12/2006 8:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
If MS pulls out it would sure be a problem for a few months but there's countless companies ready to fill the gap, actually Apple and Linux supporting companies would be more than happy for that, and the EU accounts for more people than the US so I really doubt MS would really no to OUR rules.


RE: Not Good
By ghost101 on 7/12/2006 8:23:50 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldnt mind if the MS pulled out. Using Apple's OSs wont be such a burden because software markets will develop to accomodate the huge change is OS shares of the market.


RE: Not Good
By BladeVenom on 7/12/2006 4:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, problem. They could all just switch to Apple. That would only cost in the 100's of billions for Europe to replace all their hardware and saoftware.

Then Europe would go from being dependent on Microsoft's software, to being dependent on Apples software and hardware . I doubt most would consider that a good alternative.


RE: Not Good
By segagenesis on 7/12/2006 8:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
While im not gung ho pro-MS I think on the same lines as you, although not to the point I consider the EU to be socialism. I find it stupid that they are arguing over the bundling of media player or IE (or was it just media player?) like it makes a difference on what people use. Netscape lost marketshare to IE because they sat on thier golden pedestal and did nothing for too long and Microsoft did what anyone does in a capitalist market, compete. Remember when you had to pay for Netscape?

Now as entertaining as your solution might be of Microsoft leaving the EU completely it's also rather impractical despite how much we read about Linux or alternatives being picked up... Microsoft depends on sales outside the US to, like any business wants to do, make more money. How much the fines would affect thier bottom line (or rather how they are even managing to enforce this?) I do not know and I imagine if it got to the point that the EU is unprofitable for them then they probably would do an exit, stage right. Quite interested in seeing how this one turns out...


RE: Not Good
By Spoonbender on 7/12/2006 8:43:30 AM , Rating: 3
Oh yes, that was what they fined MS for. For including Media Player. Odd though, that they still got fined even though they delivered an OS that wasn't bundled with it a year or two ago, isn't it?

Good to know that opponents of this fine are so well-informed.
Here's a suggestion, try reading up on what it was they were actually fined for before you comment.

To put it simply though, try making *any* application that interacts with Windows. It may be replacing IE as the built-in browser that's *always* used in some circumstances, it might be providing support for a different file system, or heck, it might just be an app that needs to pull some data from a Windows box. These communication protocols just aren't documented. A lot of functionality for a Windows system is just impossible for 3rd party vendors to deliver, because Microsoft won't open up the relevant API's/protocols/documentation.

"Like it makes a difference on what people use. Netscape lost marketshare to IE because they sat on thier golden pedestal and did nothing for too long"
If that is so, then how come 3rd party browser which are better than IE in every way today still only hold ~10% market share?
Bundling your own product obviously makes it harder for others to compete. Especially because *many* users don't know a lot about computers, aren't aware that alternatives exist.

Another question though, if you think Microsoft is competing fairly, where is my alternative?
Now, by alternative I mean a different product I could use instead of Windows. Where's my other OS that could run my games, MS Office, any other Windows app?

I can buy any brand of car, and it'll still work with the same kind of gasoline, on the same roads.
I can buy an AMD or Intel processor, and still run the same programs.
I can buy any electrical appliance, knowing that it'll plug into the wall socket. I don't need a different phone depending on who I want to talk to.
Every other market is standardized enough that it's possible to compete.
Only on the OS market does competition mean "develop your own damn infrastructure that's incompatible with ours"
Is that fair competition?
(And no, this isn't exactly what they got fined for. It's just an observation in response to the whinging that "Ohnoes, a US company got fined by a non-US entity. that is sooo wrong"

Funnily enough, I didn't notice any outcry when the US government fined MS for abusing their monopoly. Was it becaues the fine was smaller? Or because they were American, so "they're allowed to"?


RE: Not Good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:00:03 AM , Rating: 3
> "if you think Microsoft is competing fairly, where is my alternative?"

In the Server OS marketplace-- VMS, Open-VMS, MVS, AIX, Solaris, MXS, HP-UX, Netware, OpenServer, IRIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and a thousand different varieties of Linux. And countless others I didn't name.

> "then how come 3rd party browser which are better than IE in every way today still only hold ~10% market share? "

Because they're not *enough* better to justify most people taking the time to install them. If a browser browses...its good enough for the average Joe.

> " I didn't notice any outcry when the US government fined MS for abusing their monopoly. Was it becaues the fine was smaller?"

Primarily it was because a) Microsoft actually had a monopoly in the desktop market, unlike the server market the EU action is addressing. And b) because the DOJ demands were far more reasonable than the EU's "we-wont-tell-you-what-we-want-but-provide-it-anywa y" attitude.


RE: Not Good
By Spoonbender on 7/12/2006 9:06:53 AM , Rating: 4
"b) because the DOJ demands were far more reasonable than the EU's "we-wont-tell-you-what-we-want-but-provide-it-anywa y" attitude. "
That one is subjective at best, isn't it?
As far as I know, their demands have been pretty clear. "Documentation, so that others can use these protocols and API's".

Now, Microsoft has delivered a few thousand pages that might qualify as documentation, but didn't satisfy the latter part, of allowing people to actually use it. In other words, it was lousy documentation that just didn't make it any easier.
Next, they offered to open up their source code, which again doesn't satisfy the requirement. It's not a matter of being allowed to see what goes on inside a Microsoft product. It's simply delivering documentation that makes it possible for 3rd party vendors to deliver server products on an equal footing with Microsoft's own similar products.

And DOJ's "far more reasonable" demands haven't exactly had a big impact, have they?
So maybe they were a bit *too* reasonable?

"Because they're not *enough* better to justify most people taking the time to install them. If a browser browses...its good enough for the average Joe. "
Exactly. So Microsoft wins by default in *every* market. Simply because they have a dominating OS. That's not fair, it's not free market, it's not anything other than preventing competition.
True, it makes it easier for the lazy consumer, but it makes it impossible for other developers to even compete. Because the vast majority isn't going to even *see* their product.
If you look at the browser market again, sure, Average Joe has had his OS bundled with IE6 for ages now. And how much competition have we seen there? How much improvement? How much development?
None. No one can compete with a mediocre browser that's bundled with the de-facto monopoly OS.
Ok, in the last 3 years or so, Firefox has sloooowly been breaking out, but look at the pace, and look at how much time has been wasted with *no* improvements on the browser market. Then try to claim again that it's not a problem.


RE: Not Good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:50:49 AM , Rating: 3
> "As far as I know, their demands have been pretty clear"

Then you don't know. Their original demand was for "all internal documentation and information". Microsoft provided it. After months of "review", the EU called it incomplete, saying it may not fully document what the source code was doing. So Microsoft offered licensed source code...the EU replied with a demand for free source code, and the creation of a whole new set of documentation.

Microsoft spent a year asking the independent trustee on the case to tell them *exactly* what was required. This was done in March of this year...and since that date, Microsoft has delivered 6 of his 7 required installments, and hopes to deliver the 7th by July 18.


RE: Not Good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:55:01 AM , Rating: 3
> "Exactly. So Microsoft wins by default in *every* market"

It wins in the market in which browsing isn't critical. Nothing wrong with that...it doesn't hurt the consumer in the slightest. For people that truly want to pay for a better browser...better browsers are available.

Most consumers DON'T want to pay for a browser though. They don't even want to spend 15 minutes installing one. They want one that's good enough, period.

You have to understand a basic tenet of antitrust law. It exists to protect the consumer...NOT to protect competitors. The consumer is not being hurt by a free browser in Windows...not as long as they have the option to replace it with another one.

> "Ok, in the last 3 years or so, Firefox has sloooowly been breaking out"

More proof that competition exists, and is not being stifled. Hell, some people even PAY for Opera.



RE: Not Good
By segagenesis on 7/12/2006 10:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Microsoft and monopoly bring the worst out and people and I see far too many scathing rebuttles...

Since DailyTech doesnt like deeply nested replies I'll have to clarify who im referring to...
masher2
It wins in the market in which browsing isn't critical. Nothing wrong with that...it doesn't hurt the consumer in the slightest. For people that truly want to pay for a better browser...better browsers are available.

Ex-act-ly. Why this is even being argued with such religious ferver is beyond sensibility. You are not being forced to use IE with windows. Everyone can start screaming bloody murder monopoly HELP IM BEING REPRESSED once Microsoft stats disallowing you to run firefox.exe or opera.exe. It's like obese people complaining they are fat because of the food when the food does not just jump into thier mouths.

Spoonbender
So Microsoft wins by default in *every* market. Simply because they have a dominating OS. That's not fair, it's not free market, it's not anything other than preventing competition.

Chill out there, bro. While you are entitled to your opinion I think this has to be the oldest and most worn out excuse one can give. The vast majority of PC users use Windows and continue using it because they do not want to re-learn Mac OS or Linux. Imagine the training costs and productivity losses to corporations if Microsoft disappeared tomorrow. Please, think sensibly here in your arguments... even though it might seem unfair that Microsoft is the dominating operating system its not like the world is ending because of it either. Especially in the case of Linux or FreeBSD or even Mac X Server, it might be able to compete in the more tech savvy field of servers... there is no monopoly here by a long shot.

Linux for a desktop seems unviable as a replacement for Windows to the masses until there is alot more agreement going on between distributions. KDE vs. Gnome and x.org vs. xfree86 and something vs. somethingelse does not help the situation. Where I work if I put Ubuntu on my bosses desktop or anyone elses and said they could not use Windows anymore I would get fired.


RE: Not Good
By Hare on 7/12/2006 12:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Opera has been free for a while...


RE: Not Good
By fsardis on 7/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not Good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 7:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "*clap* *clap* I bow to your ignorance. So tell me the last time you ordered a pc from dell which one did you chose? win xp or win mce? cause still i cant find the linux option.
and i case you didnt know, most people will buy a Dell.
nice free choice eh?

Lol, you totally missed the EU action is concerned with the SERVER MARKET. A point the ill-informed in this thread seem to continually miss.

To further compound your ignorance, even Dell ships servers with several different choices of OS. Red Hat Enterprise and Suse LINUX among them.

Oops.


RE: Not Good
By maxusa on 7/12/2006 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
> how come 3rd party browser which are better than IE in every way today still only hold ~10% market share?

This is such a generalization, which is also false. Let me ask you how did you determine that a "3rd party browser" is better than IE in every way? Which ways did you consider?

Let me tell you one particular way that I interact with on a daily basis - software development. Based on my personal and my web development team's experiences, IE6 is "better" in capabilities, interop, integration, and compliance perspectives than most other browsers. There are advantages these other browsers hold over IE, but generalizations like yours are incorrect.


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 8:23:53 AM , Rating: 3
Nah, Microsoft wouldn't do that, after all, they are a business, not a political body.

What Microsoft probably will do, however, is realize there is a higher cost of doing business in Europe, and pass those higher costs along to European consumers. I don't see any reason that Microsoft should absorb these unreasonable costs out of its profits. If the EU wants to fine Microsoft, then it would be fitting if the fines were paid for by EU consumers.


RE: Not Good
By raven3x7 on 7/12/2006 9:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
Difted into Socialism? The EU? LMAO YOu got to be jocking.


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 12:20:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Difted into Socialism? The EU? LMAO YOu got to be jocking.

Whether the EU has drifted into socialism can be debated, but what you can't debate is that the EU is more socialistic than the US.

This fact, taken from the point of view of a typical European, is probably a good thing. But taken from the point of view of a typical American is probably a bad thing.

My point is, you can't argue whether it is right or wrong; it is purely a subjective value judgement from one's own point of view.


RE: Not Good
By Spoonbender on 7/12/2006 9:16:22 AM , Rating: 3
If by "not embracing the market" you mean "not having tens of millions of kids living in poverty", then you're correct. We choose to do that differently than the US.
If by "people don't want to work", you mean that several EU countries have something like the lowest unemployment rate in the world. Much much lower than the US, then you are also correct.
Unless I'm mistaken, the US population is declining too, and in any case, I fail to see how that is a measure of your "respect".

Personally, I'd rather have an antiquated social system than an antiquated complete disregard of the same. A complete reliance on "Oh, it'll probably turn out ok in the end".


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 12:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to debate your views on politics because that is totally subjective, but your supporting facts are mostly wrong.
quote:
If by "people don't want to work", you mean that several EU countries have something like the lowest unemployment rate in the world. Much much lower than the US, then you are also correct.

The EU unemployment rate was around 9.4% for the EU and 5.1% for the US in 2005, so I think your point (whatever it is) is undermined by the actual data. Yes, there are "some countries" in the EU with lower unemployment than the US, but is that a valid comparison? There are some regions in the US with almost zero unemployment as well, but I don't think that gives an accurate picture of the country as a whole.
quote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the US population is declining too

No, it isn't - the population growth rate in the US is just under 1%/year, with 14.14 births/1000 and 8.26 deaths/1000.



RE: Not Good
By Zurtex on 7/12/2006 9:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
That shows your complete lack of understanding in modern European politics, the largest party in the European Parliament is the centre right party.

You seem to lack a concept of quite how big the EU is, it currently consists of:

Luxembourg
Ireland
Denmark
Austria
Finland
Belgium
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
France
Italy
Spain
Greece
Slovenia
Cyprus
Malta
Czech Republic
Hungary
Portugal
Estonia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Poland
Latvia

With more countries joining, it is already, and has been for some time, the largest trading block in the world with a higher GDP than any single country. 3 of the member countries are in the top 6 (could still be top 5, I'm not sure where China sits these days) of the biggest economies in the world. The quality of life in many European Union countries are considered to be better than anywhere else in the world.

If Microsoft were to pull out of such a massive place it would be the end of the monopoly for Microsoft on the desktop market. The European Union has such an impact on the rest of the world that if they were having to exclusively use another standard of Operating System then the rest of the world would need to comply with the same standards.

The rest of your comments are complete dribble really and don't merit a response other than you need to do some research before post a string of random words.


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 12:11:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
With more countries joining, it is already, and has been for some time, the largest trading block in the world with a higher GDP than any single country.

Wrong, EU GDP in 2005 was $12.18 trillion, and the US GDP was $12.36 trillion. So the best you can say is that all ~25 countries combined have a GDP around the same another single contry, the US.

What is also wrong with your statement is that you imply that all EU nations make up a "trading block," which is not at all true - the EU does not "act as one" in trade or any other decisions for that matter.
quote:
The quality of life in many European Union countries are considered to be better than anywhere else in the world.

Quality of life is totally subjective, and probably nearly every country feels they have the best. You know this already, so what's your real point?

The rest of your comments are complete dribble really and don't merit a response other than you need to do some research before post a string of random words.


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
The EU is a trading block, thats the whole idea behind it.

Once again, i dont think you understand the purpose of the EU. I would also question your GDP figures. GDP is not something that can be accuratly calculated, especially given the size of the figures involved.

You are correct that quality of life is subjective, you mainly have to look at average life spans etc which vary greatly across the EU. I wouldnt say the rest of his/her comments are drivel though, it just appears that you cant be arsed or, indeed cant, argue against them.


RE: Not Good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "I would also question your GDP figures. GDP is not something that can be accuratly calculated..."

On the contrary, GDP can be quite accurately calculated. Saying the figures are incorrect is just a kneejerk response to facts you don't like.


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 1:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
no it cant be calculated accuratly. Especially with countries as large as the US. Please get real and stop simply opposing what I say


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no it cant be calculated accuratly. Especially with countries as large as the US. Please get real and stop simply opposing what I say

I agree that GDP numbers are not exact - they are only very close estimates. But the accuracy is good enough that it doesn't change the conclusion - that the GDP of all the EU countries is about the same as the GDP of the US.


RE: Not Good
By seb2010 on 7/12/2006 1:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
man, i give up. where do you live? The EU has its common currency since 2001


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
man, i give up. where do you live? The EU has its common currency since 2001

Is it used in the UK?


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think the euro is then?


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you think the euro is then?

Is it used in the UK?


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 4:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
No. This is an exception.


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
How about Denmark and Sweden? Exceptions also? How about the ten new member states that joined EU in 2004? Also exceptions?

I don't mean to nitpik, but my point is that EU is a work-in-progress and has a long way to go before it can be considered to be a single economy or single trading partner. It may get to that point some time in the future, or it might not (its success is by no means a sure thing), but for now you can't put it in the same category as a country like the US in that respect.


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you cant. I never said you could.

And its fairly obvious that the 10 new countries havent joined the EU yet. They only joined in 2004


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is a trading block, thats the whole idea behind it.

I agree that is the purpose behind it, but do you seriously believe that it is actually executing that way? The EU hasn't even achieved one of its earliest goals of a common currency for example.


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
it has a single currency and it is also a trade block. Do you live in the EU, as a matter of interest?


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 5:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you live in the EU, as a matter of interest?

What is the relevance of where I live - as long as we are discussing and debating facts and principles?


RE: Not Good
By Merry on 7/12/2006 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
No it occurs to me that you have been debating the facts that you have been told. These arent necersarily true.


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 9:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it occurs to me that you have been debating the facts that you have been told. These arent necersarily true.

You could be right; maybe you could shed some light on the subject.


RE: Not Good
By seb2010 on 7/12/2006 1:34:02 PM , Rating: 1
oh - my - god!

What do you think you are talking about? Are you realy telling me that you should give up all social-aspects for capitalism?? And what does it have to do with socialism anyway. you must be kidding me. Of course capitalism is a fast way to success, but american is the bad example to what it may lead. The EU just does efforts to make the market fair.
An MS should pull out of the EU? How much profit do you think they make in the EU? Its veeeery much. No company with worldwide ambitions can afford pulling out of Europe.
And you have less and less respect for the EU? Because of you, everyone else in the world has more and more less respect for the US. You have to reconsider your self-centred point of view. There are other Unions, outside your country, like said underneath, which have probably higher life-standards and surely higher moral-standards than the US. The market over there is huge. And the fact that the EU consits of so many different countries and therefor has such a high GDP should not be a bad argument. Been able to interact with so many different cultures and mentalities is a gift the United States doesn't have. The others only interact with them because its about money


RE: Not Good
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course capitalism is a fast way to success, but american is the bad example to what it may lead.

WTF are you talking about? What is the bad example? Sorry, I fail to understand the problem. In the US we have a good standard of living, civil rights, opportunities for all, no serious fear of the government, freedom to choose how to live our lives, etc.
quote:
The EU just does efforts to make the market fair.

I don't think you understand the facts of this case. In what way do the EU actions seek to achieve "fairness" (whatever that term actually means)? This case is about protocols and APIs in Windows server, in which market Microsoft doesn't have anything close to a monopoly. So please explain the principles of fairness you think apply here, because I don't understand it.
quote:
There are other Unions, outside your country, like said underneath, which have probably higher life-standards and surely higher moral-standards than the US

Again, what are you talking about? Every country in the world feels they have the highest "life-standards" and "moral-standards." It is totally subjective based on your values. For example, a suicide bomber adheres to his own moral standard, but most of the rest of the world doesn't agree that murder is a reasonable approach to create change.
quote:
Been able to interact with so many different cultures and mentalities is a gift the United States doesn't have. The others only interact with them because its about money

I have no idea what you mean here either. I guess I don't understand anything in your post really.


RE: Not Good
By non gay european on 7/31/2006 4:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, u have these wonderful utopistic enviroment with more then 13k murders a year reported... :D
Germany has around 81 mil population and 100-200 murders reported a year....
you have to admit, that in States you practise a policy "you can keep what you kill"...
you can never see 2 or 3 mil homeless people wondering around Europe...
you CANNOT see guy hittin mom-and-pops stores and killing people for few worthless papers....
there are many things i can give right now, which are really better about Europe...
as far as i can see, i CANNOT give some about USA...


RE: Not Good
By non gay european on 7/31/2006 3:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
best you´re not...
do you even know what the hell the Socialism word means?
i guess everything not good for you and US is socialistic, right?


People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 8:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
Who are advocating that Microsoft should pull out of the EU are really kidding themselves. Imagine the increase in piracy for one thing. You also seem to forget that many games are developed in the EU, and, more specifically here in the UK. No prizes for guessing who they would develop for if microsoft ever did pull out, which, of course, they wont.

It appears that the EU is trying to reduce the barriers to entry of this particular market, which, in my eyes is no bad thing, in the long term in will be the consumers that benefit. If you look at it in terms of the free market then techically such actions are wrong, however, the free market is not always a good thing. Look at healthcare provision, for example. I believe that simply relying on the free market as a means of the provision of resources is simply outdated and, to some degree too simplistic.


I would like to point out that i am not a Socialist, either. I am a believer in 'Modern Liberalism' and all that goes with it.




Ponder this argument...
By DallasTexas on 7/12/2006 9:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
"..t appears that the EU is trying to reduce the barriers to entry of this particular market, which, in my eyes is no bad thing.."

( below is from another post elsehwhere I made)
Disagree here. The competitiveness of nations will largely be technological. China and India knows this. While all the morons in here celebrate the destruction of large american technology companies like Intel and Microsoft, this is music to foreign governments out build out there own capabilities.

The chinese government will build out their own semiconductor fab capabilities, develop their own Linux OS, there own Google. WHile Bush flushes 1/2 trillion down the toilet a year, these governments are investing in their own future.

France? They hate american companies. The EU is abusing it's power by milking MS to fund their own industry - all this under the cover of "monopoly power". It's an outrageous abuse or goevernment power over a company that already has been fined andpaid up. The US gov needs to get involved here to keep our cornerstone institutions in technology from being destroyed by governments.

While it's recreational to beat up MS, INtel, Google, Dell, etc. The joke is on you (us) in the long run.


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 9:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
you misunderstand me.

I would not celebrate the destruction of large firms, such as microsoft. It would be a bad thing. I do, however, wish there was more genuine competition in this market, which there currently isnt. I mean i've been trying to find a decent alternative to Windows for a while now and there simply isnt one, with the possible exception of osx, but that involves me having to buy a Mac, which i cant afford.

And yes, it is true that the French dont like foreign companies, hell they're still trying to stop the British from exporting our beef to them, its just they way they work. I dont agree with it and neither does the EU, France has come under increasing criticism from the EU for such practices. There is no way the EU is milking Microsoft either. They dont have to. These fines a small change to them, and they are certainly not out to destroy Microsoft. This isnt a government conspiracy or anything like that. The EU is simply trying to curtail monopoly power, and those in favour of the free market should really be encouraging such actions.

I think the problem (generally) is that US citizens, on the whole, do not understand the EU. This is fairly obvious given the outrageous claims about government conspriacies posted on here and in other threads regarding this issue. It is daft to think its a load of unaccountable fat cats lining their pockets. It isnt the Commission isnt that large, indeed it is vastly smaller than the the BBC, it is also rather naive to think the EU is just out to get US companies. This is not the case.


RE: People
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
You devote a lot of discussion to discredit the motives assumed by many posters here, but you fail to provide a reasonable, logical explanation of the EU's actions/motives. You claim to understand the EU, so please explain to us here why their actions in this case are justified?

Frankly I think you are being naive in assuming that there is not a large political element to what is going on. If what is going on is based on politics instead of principles, then I think it is fair to critize the EU actions.


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 4:58:25 PM , Rating: 1
you're an idiot, really you are.

I've told you what the reasons are, and thats to reduce barriers to entry in this particular market. There are too many countries in the EU with different interests for it to be anything other than this.

I have been to see the European parliament in action, i have talked to M.E.Ps, they are most certainly not fatcats out to get US companies.


RE: People
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 5:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've told you what the reasons are, and thats to reduce barriers to entry in this particular market. There are too many countries in the EU with different interests for it to be anything other than this.

What barriers to entry exist in the server OS market? There are at least a half-dozen products with a significant market share already. Microsoft does not have a monopoly in this market. So how will Microsoft's providing this documentation and/or paying fines lower the barrier to entry into this market? By making it easier for other companies to steal trade secrets, to study Microsoft's implementation, or what?
quote:
I have been to see the European parliament in action, i have talked to M.E.Ps, they are most certainly not fatcats out to get US companies.

Next you're going to tell me that you trust these politicians, and that you couldn't possibly believe they have political motivations? But I am the idiot?


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 5:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
What barriers to entry exist in the server OS market? There are at least a half-dozen products with a significant market share already. Microsoft does not have a monopoly in this market.

correct me if i'm wrong, but this is about making programs to run on windows. Not rival operating systems.

Next you're going to tell me that you trust these politicians, and that you couldn't possibly believe they have political motivations? But I am the idiot?

i feel sorry for people who think like this, really i do. Do you even know what an MEP is? They represent a number of different parties NOT a country. Indeed they are seated according to political belief and NOT by country. They represent what their party stands for NOT a country.







RE: People
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 5:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
correct me if i'm wrong, but this is about making programs to run on windows. Not rival operating systems.

Are you saying Microsoft has a monopoly in writing apps that run on Windoww? What are you saying? You talked about barriers to entry - what did you mean? Plenty of companies have competing operating systems, and plenty of companies (lots really) have written programs that run on Windows. What barrier?
quote:
i feel sorry for people who think like this, really i do. Do you even know what an MEP is? They represent a number of different parties NOT a country. Indeed they are seated according to political belief and NOT by country. They represent what their party stands for NOT a country.

Not sure your point - an MEP is an elected politician. Therefore, they are susceptible to all that goes along with it. I'm not saying all politicians are bad, but I am saying that politicians sometimes make bad decisions based on political motivations that may not be in the best interests of their constituents.


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying Microsoft has a monopoly in writing apps that run on Windoww? What are you saying? You talked about barriers to entry - what did you mean? Plenty of companies have competing operating systems, and plenty of companies (lots really) have written programs that run on Windows. What barrier?

I wasnt saying that they were. I was just saying that there is a barrier to entry in this market as Microsoft, who has the documentation, can obviously write better programs which can be integrated into the OS, at least thats what reading these articles has led me to believe.

Not sure your point - an MEP is an elected politician. Therefore, they are susceptible to all that goes along with it. I'm not saying all politicians are bad, but I am saying that politicians sometimes make bad decisions based on political motivations that may not be in the best interests of their constituents.

then theres a good few hundred others to vote against them, from all political persuasions and countries.


RE: People
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 6:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TomZ: Are you saying Microsoft has a monopoly in writing apps that run on Windoww?

Merry: I wasn't saying that they were.


If Microsoft has no monopoly, then the EU commission is clearly in the wrong.

And you're still dodging the primary point, which is Microsoft has already provided *everything* it itself had to develop with...and is furiously working to meet the EU's demands for more. Is it really reasonable to fine them for 8 months of "noncompliance", when the EU only clarified their demands four months ago? If the answer is so complex it takes two years to even ask the question, is allowing Microsoft at least 6 months unreasonable?


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 6:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 7:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
now i'm being a prune and linked the wrong thing

http://news.com.com/5208-12-0.html?forumID=1&threa...

i think this guy pretty much says what i would given your response.


RE: People
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 9:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
now i'm being a prune and linked the wrong thing

http://news.com.com/5208-12-0.html?forumID=1&threa...

i think this guy pretty much says what i would given your response.

The posters in that thread are pretty much wrong, especially with the assertion that other companies do not have the ability to develop applications like Office because Microsoft is holding back information. That argument is pure bullshit. All you have to do is count up the thousands of other applications written by other companies that: (a) meet their functional requirements, (b) are performant, (c) are high-quality/bug-free, and (d) are commercially successful in the market.

I will even go one step further. Nobody has made it easier to develop applications on Windows than Microsoft. Microsoft not only provides excellent documentation for their myriad APIs and services, but they also provide excellent development tools, supply high-level API's like .NET, etc., and also provide direct support as well as facilitate community-based support. There is no company that helps developers target Windows more than Microsoft. And that should come as no surprise, since Microsoft likes selling copies of Windows.

So if anyone tells you that they can't write apps for Windows because they don't have the information, basically you should assume they simply don't know what they are doing.


RE: People
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 8:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
then theres a good few hundred others to vote against them, from all political persuasions and countries.

The problem is that sometimes power becomes concentrated amounst a few select politicians on a particular committee. I suspect this is exactly what is going on with the Microsoft case, where someone in charge of this particular activity has an axe to grind, or has decided to "save the world" from Microsoft.


RE: People
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 5:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "you're an idiot"

Actually, TomZ is one of the most literate and well-informed posters on the board. He's corrected several of your factual errors, and remained civil while doing so. Why not emulate his fine example?

> "Do you even know what an MEP is? They represent a number of different parties NOT a country. Indeed they are seated according to political belief and NOT by country. They represent what their party stands for NOT a country..."

Do you even realize that your statement *supports* his point? A Member of the European Parliament is most certainly politically motivated just as he said...and as you confirm in your post.


RE: People
By Merry on 7/12/2006 6:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
oh dear, another person whose posts i once held in high regard makes himself look just a bit stupid.

TomZ implied that the it was countries and not individuals who were out to 'get' microsoft. This isnt the case. Nor is it the case that individuals are out to 'get' microsoft. There are too many different individuals with different views for this to be the case. You have misinterpreted my original point.


RE: People
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 6:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "oh dear, another person whose posts i once held in high regard makes himself look just a bit stupid."

I suggest you judge each post on its own merits. I've seen posts of yours I agreed with before...your present unreasonableness doesn't change my opinion of them.

> "TomZ implied that the it was countries and not individuals who were out to 'get' microsoft..."

On the contrary, he implied it was individuals, motivated by political reasons, who were so motivated.

> "There are too many different individuals with different views for this to be the case. "

There isn't a single MEP in Parliament that doesn't want to see European companies have a competitive advantage over US firms. Nor are there any that will say no to a free billion in cash extra for the budget...not when it doesn't come out of the pockets of any of their constituents.






Eh???
By bobsmith1492 on 7/12/2006 8:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
How is Microsoft supposed to sell a product if they have to give it away...???




RE: Eh???
By ghost101 on 7/12/2006 8:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the demands are similar to that of the us justice department.


RE: Eh???
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 8:33:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "I believe the demands are similar to that of the us justice department. "

You believe quite wrongly then. The EU is demanding "full disclosure" on APIs in the server marketplace...a market in which Microsoft isn't even a monopoly.

Microsoft provided its own internal documentation-- the EU called it unsufficient. Microsoft offered the full source code for the APIs...the EU still said its not enough. Right now the EU is hinting they may require Microsoft to train its competitors on how to best build products to compete with them.


RE: Eh???
By Spoonbender on 7/12/2006 8:50:14 AM , Rating: 3
Is that so unfair? Keep in mind, you're mixing two different entities.
Their OS and the server products are unrelated businesses.
Shouldn't 3rd party server products be able to use the OS just as well as their own proprietary server products can?

If they use their (unrelated) OS to help them gain market share in the server product market, isn't that a pretty clear-cut definition of abusing your monopoly?
Then their products don't win market share because they're better, but because their completely unrelated OS business withholds information from 3rd party developers that their (unrelated to the OS) server app people are allowed to see?

And full source code obviously wasn't enough when the demand was for *documentation*
Have you tried reading a few dozen million lines of undocumented code? Do you think that makes it easier to compete? Think again. The EC simply wants MS to document the ways *any* program, third party or otherwise, can interact with the OS. Is that so unfair? It doesn't harm their OS business at all.
Does it harm their server business? Possibly. If it makes inferior products. Otherwise not. They can still make equally good/bad products, but now others can too.


RE: Eh???
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
> "Shouldn't 3rd party server products be able to use the OS just as well "

Thousands of third-party server products do that today. They run on Microsoft OSes...and run just as well if not better than do Microsoft's own products.

> "And full source code obviously wasn't enough when the demand was for *documentation*"

Microsoft provided all documentation it had, along with the source code. This was enough for Microsoft to build its own server products with...why is it not enough for a third party?

> "The EC simply wants MS to document the ways *any* program, third party or otherwise, can interact with the OS. Is that so unfair? "

When the subject is so complex that it took the EU two YEARS to even clearly formulate their own demands, then they should give Microsoft a reasonable amount of time to obey. The EU clarified their demands only in March...but they're backdating this fine to December...four months BEFORE they even told Microsoft exactly what they wanted.

Is that unfair? Only a fool would even need to ask.





RE: Eh???
By Zurtex on 7/12/2006 9:08:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

Microsoft provided its own internal documentation-- the EU called it unsufficient. Microsoft offered the full source code for the APIs...the EU still said its not enough. Right now the EU is hinting they may require Microsoft to train its competitors on how to best build products to compete with them.


To be fair, the guy that Microsoft hired to show the EU that it was complying to EU standards has said that Microsoft's attempt is completely inadequate.


RE: Eh???
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "To be fair, the guy that Microsoft hired..."

I believe you're referring to CS Professor Neil Barrett, who was **not** hired by Microsoft. Barrett was hired by the EU. He's the one who said the 12,000 pages of supplied documentation were "inadequate"....and he's the one who took two years to tell Microsoft specifically what the EU was demanding.



RE: Eh???
By Zurtex on 7/12/2006 9:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm,right, sorry, must of mis-read an article. But would I not be correct in thinking that Microsoft had some part in getting this guy on board in the first place?

I've heard much worse be described about the 12'000 pages of documentation from other people involved in the case, being that I through all the things I've read I haven't seen a single positive comment on them it rather makes me doubt their usefulness.

Any way, to not get facts mixed up I assume when you say "EU" you mean European Commission? And I would be correct in thinking (a nightmare to decipher from the linked article) that the EU Court hasn't ruled in favor of the European Commission of Microsoft yet, right?


RE: Eh???
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 10:01:53 AM , Rating: 3
> I've heard much worse be described about the 12'000 pages of documentation from other people involved in the case

Who else have you heard from, other than Barrett? Barrett calls the preexisting documentation incomplete, not detailed enough, and poorly organized. But that documentation and the source code is all Microsoft itself had to work to develop its products. They managed...why can't some other company? Point in fact, other companies HAVE managed, and WITHOUT that documentation or source code.

Now, I'm sure he's right on the "poorly organized" part. But a billion dollar fine justified because some documentation is "poorly organized"?

Finally, we're skipping the most salient point. Barrett clarified his request in March. Since then, Microsoft has created many thousands of pages of NEW documentation, written to his specific order. 6 of 7 installments, in fact.


RE: Eh???
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 1:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Barrett calls the preexisting documentation incomplete, not detailed enough, and poorly organized.

That sounds like par for the course for most software documentation I've encountered throughout my career. I agree with you - it seems that everyone else is able to develop with and interoperate with Windows even without the special information demanded by the EU.

And, as I've said before, MS API documentation, i.e., MSDN Library, is far better than anything else I've seen. I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Microsoft has not made a good effort to allow folks to write apps for their OS.


RE: Eh???
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/12/2006 8:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yea I'm gonna have to go with Microsoft pulling out of the EU. Sure the EU could switch over to Linux/Apple, but Microsoft still makes money if they go with Apple since even Apple pays to use AppleOffice. Now on the Linux front, the EU would be unable to conduct business since all international companies use Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows as a standard platform, thus allowing things to be shared between companies. EU's businesses would find themselves in a bad position very quickly. See in the USA, its simply a matter of, I hate WMP, *loads Winamp*, in the EU its more along the lines of WTF? We have to load something other than the default? We want choice! Well heres a new concept for the EU........ people are STUPID, choice simply confuses the vast majority. How about give them something that friggin works (Apple has done this since its inception, why the heck is it a big deal with Microsoft), if they posess the capacity to choose something different fine, they can do that, but otherwise stop crying EU.

Now on the other side of the fence, I have seen that in the EU, fairness is really subjective. Because Microsoft is a Monopoly, the same rules dont apply. In the EU, if your a Monopoly, everyone is going to stick it to you, and its alright because your a Monopoly. The RealPlayer fiasco that went around in the EU a few years ago just proves that point. Nobody will ever tell you Realplayer is superior to WMP, Quicktime, or Winamp, heck Realplayer was a POS for a long time, no wonder nobody switched to it? Instead they cry that people arent paying to buy their Realplayer without all the annoying advertisements, and are using the built-in mediaplayer that doesnt spam them to death? Gee let me think about that one for a second.

Welcome to planet DUH! Get off the short bus.


RE: Eh???
By Strunf on 7/12/2006 8:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
"Now on the Linux front, the EU would be unable to conduct business since all international companies use Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows as a standard platform"
hmm since when business needs Office, and to your information the EU exports as much as it imports and I dont see any reason to think that someone that wants to sell us something doesnt comply to OUR rules, if they dont then there's probably countless others ready to do it.


RE: Eh???
By Spoonbender on 7/12/2006 9:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, Microsoft will simply abandon 300+ million customers. That's likely to happen.
Especially because it would give competitors a huge advantage.
Apple and/or Linux would explode in Europe. So would Wine or anything else that lets you use Windows-apps (Hey, do you think MS patents would be valid in Europe if they're found breaking European law, and don't compete in Europe anyway?)

So another OS would become *the* standard. And because that OS could be used anywhere, but Windows can't, it would even gain a very strong position in the rest of the world too.
The US government wants a *standard* for their apps and documents? Well, then they'll have to use something other than MS, because MS products are useless in Europe.
A multinational corporation needs to install new software? They sure aren't going to use one product in the US and another in Europe. And since using MS in Europe isn't an option, it'd make more sense to ditch MS elsewhere.

No, Microsoft isn't going to do that.

"See in the USA, its simply a matter of, I hate WMP, *loads Winamp*"
Uh, no?
For the vast majority of users, it's "Oh, WMP comes with the computer. Look, it can play these fancy mp3 things! How clever"
*Uses WMP for a year or two, until some geek relative drops by*
"Look, there are much better programs than WMP" *installs Winamp*
"Oh, I don't know how to use that. Looks sooo confusing. Now I'd just gotten used to WMP." *goes back to WMP*

"Because Microsoft is a Monopoly, the same rules dont apply"
That's true. It's true in the US too. Being a monopoly, and abusing that position isn't considered fair anywhere. The difference is that in the EU, it's much more consistent. In the US, you might be a monopoly, but you can get away with a slap on the wrist if you're careful, do a bit of lobbying, and most importantly, churn out a lot of money.

Preventing competition is bad. I thought Americans were born with a gene for "Free market. What a good idea". Maybe Europe just actively ensures that there *is* a free market, rather than just leaving things be until there no longer is any choice, and no longer any free market.


RE: Eh???
By raven3x7 on 7/12/2006 9:07:10 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with what you say. Just a minor correction. Software Patents are invallid in the EU anyway. The EPO grants them but they are not enforcable, infact the EPO is breaking EU law by granting them.


RE: Eh???
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 9:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "Being a monopoly, and abusing that position isn't considered fair anywhere"

As has already been pointed out, in the server arena Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Nor did it "abuse" its position...unless you consider holding a trade secret as abuse.


I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 4:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
... if anyone here has actually seen what MS actually delivered to the EU?

just giving away 12000 pages of paper doesn't say anything about the contents.

Maybe its useful maybe not ... but so far I havent seen any independent sources... only statements by MS or the EC.

So for the time being the discussion is pretty pointless, since noone can really tell who of the two sides in this case is messing things up.

MS complains the EU didn't state clearly what they wanted, EU complains MS didn't deliver although they stated absolute clearly what they wanted... so whos right now?

... yeah you all have seen the official documents and read every single page of the documentation...thought so too, so were all experts here. **BLEH***

come on, get serious people... without hard facts most posts here are mere rants - but quite amusing tho... especially the whole US vs. EU thinggy...

keep cool ;-)




RE: I just wonder...
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 4:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your assumption is that EU has a valid cause to even require the additional documentation in the first place. That is not a foregone conclusion, IMO. The content of the 12,000 pages is irrelevant.


RE: I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 5:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
since the EC is a governmental body it has a valid cause, since it only executes the rules - in this case the antitrust rules.

it might be you dont like the rules in the first place - thats a different thing tho, as this is your perfect own opinion. the cause tho is valid.

it might be that the EC is executing the rules in a wrong way - that is why there are courts and MS already appealed.

Basically MS has two choices: play the game by the rules or quit playing the game

(or - change the rules...) ;-)


RE: I just wonder...
By TomZ on 7/12/2006 5:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since the EC is a governmental body it has a valid cause, since it only executes the rules - in this case the antitrust rules.

Interesting view - an objective, non-political government. Never heard of such a thing. It would be a nice ideal, however.


RE: I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 5:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
to be honest, the EC is some kind of special case, as it is no government in a common sense - but I'm disgressing.

Anyways I'd call it quite objective since it only executes the rules - and in case the commission messes up here, you can call in the courts (as MS did so far with every single decision of the commission).

As I said before, you might question the rules, but the execution of them has been a rather technical procedure so far.

On the other hand, as a sovereign power, the EU has all the right in the world to give itself the rules as it sees fit.

Again, you might not love those rules, call them unjust, whatever... but basically it works this way: as long as you play on my turf i make the rules - love it or leave it.


RE: I just wonder...
By maxusa on 7/12/2006 5:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
I tell you one thing I personally saw in the past, see now, and will keep seeing... solid and quality MS API documentation, dev knowledgebases, dev support, dev usergroups, all of which only gets better over time. Even without seeing the new 12000 pages, I have a very good idea about MS dev documentation.

The discussion is not pointless. It allows people to exchange opinions and, through arguments, strengthen the understanding of the case.


RE: I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 5:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it seems the Monitoring Trustee Prof. Barrett (appointed by MS and the EC) has a different opinion, so I guess your idea about the API documentation in this case is not fitting.
And it seems MS is working quite well with him :

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Barrett and his team for their hard work over the past few months. With them, we have created a highly constructive process that we hope can achieve resolution on the technical documentation, and also help resolve any future issues. - Brad Smith, Microsoft (source: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul0...


RE: I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 5:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
hmm...i forgot a space there...wheres the edit button? anyways... heres mr smith once more:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul0...


RE: I just wonder...
By maxusa on 7/12/2006 8:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
zphikel, please refer to the following branch of this thread:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3266&...

This discussion is growing, and has become hard to follow/read. masher2 addresses your point about Mr. Barrett in the linked branch.


RE: I just wonder...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2006 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "Maybe its useful maybe not ... but so far I havent seen any independent sources... only statements by MS or the EC.

So for the time being the discussion is pretty pointless"

Incorrect, for a few reasons. First of all, let's list what we DO know.

a) The original 12,000 pages of documentation and the source code are all Microsoft itself had, and it managed to write many server products with just those resources.

b) Many developers and companies have written fine products without even those two resources, proving its possible.

c) Microsoft is not "refusing" to provide still more information, and in fact has already delivered a huge amount of additional documentation, all of it custom-written to the EU's specification.

The EU is simply claiming Microsoft isn't providing information fast enough, despite the fact that the subject itself is so vast and complex, that it took the EU two years simply to fully document the demand itself. Microsoft received that clarification in March, instantly pulled 300 engineers off other projects, and began delivering new documentation.


RE: I just wonder...
By zaphikel on 7/12/2006 7:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
We'll have to be careful here:

a)
MS claims those 12 000 pages were all they had. Unfortunately we can't prove this claim, so we actually dont know what MS really has. This is a pure statement by MS. (Besides what do you expect? Microsoft saying: we actually got 30 000 pages but we only give you those 12 000...)

b)
why was the monitoring trustee not able to do so?
and its a well known secret that not all ins and outs of the APIs have been documented by MS.(I think a link to a page documenting the "unofficial" API-features was somwhere posted in an earlier comment). And that seems to be the real crux: to level the playing field all competitors need the same infos, and thats all the commission wanted: The Decision ordered Microsoft to disclose, within 120 days, complete and accurate interface information which would allow rival vendors to interoperate with Windows, and to make that information available on reasonable terms (source: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cas... )

c)
true - but obviously it didn't comply to what the commission wanted. and MS was warned quite some time ago (15th December 2005)


I beg to differ on your last statement. In case you're interested in the commissions view of the case, heres a nice timeline (in addition to the above source):

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cas...

it doesnt't look to me like the commission needed 2 years to document the case. Actually It rather looks to me like 2 years of legal action and counteraction. (with MS being on the short end for now - but the judges havent spoken on MS appeal yet)

We still have no info on how clear or unclear the demand of the comission actually was, but it rather seems to me that MS needed from March 24th (the day MS first got the decision and knew what was coming its way) until February 15th 2006 (the day of its reply to the statement of objection from the EC) to find out that the demands of the commission were unclear (not bad if you remember that they had 120 days to comply...and now we got July 2006 ... 800+ days and counting :o) )

And finally, for all interested people here, who are wondering what we're actually argueing about, the infamous EC-decision:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cas...

(and no, I havent read it and cant be bothered...really...302 pages of legal text... ughhh... but the first few pages are a nice read about what happened since the first complaint by sun in 1998 )