backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Apr 2 at 10:24 PM
Microsoft is meeting with the EU to try and save the company from $2.4 million in daily fines

Microsoft is hoping to avoid heavy fines from the European Union by defending itself during a two-day hearing about its delay of not sharing software code with rivals.  The company faces a $2.4 million daily fine if the EU decides to levy the fines.  After the first day of the hearing yesterday, Microsoft said that it is optimistic that it will be able to avoid the daily fine.  The EU still believes that Microsoft hasn't met the terms of an antitrust order that forced the company to share information with rivals two years ago.  MarketWatch reports:

During the hearing's first day, the independent trustee monitoring the case went through a detailed presentation of his difficulties in using Microsoft's instructions for rivals on how to integrate its programs, according to people attending. Microsoft responded that it has done more than enough to comply with E.U. orders and is willing to make further concessions.

Software producers from companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Novell and IBM will speak during the second day of the hearing today to show proof that Microsoft hasn't done enough.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ridiculous
By Rapsven on 3/31/2006 1:03:29 PM , Rating: 3
Why should Microsoft be obligated to share code with its rivals?




RE: Ridiculous
By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
They don't have to give others code.

There are supposed to competely document their protocols and interfaces.

DT, as usual, got the news item wrong. Pretty hard to do when none of it is original content to begin with.


RE: Ridiculous
By Scorpion on 3/31/2006 1:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
What I still don't understand though, is there are many proprietary protocols that don't have documented interfaces. RealMedia for example? I believe everything had to be reverse engineered in order to run Real content in something other than RealPlayer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So why is Microsoft being forced to give out this information when a lot of other businesses don't?

I'm not Pro-Microsoft at all, but to a certain degree I disagree with the EU's decision. If Apple were to start building most everyday features and programs into their OS or bundle them without any documentation as to how to interface with it or bypass it with some other program, no one would care. So why don't the governments just get to the point and call Microsoft a Monopoly?

It seems to me that last I recall no one was required to disclose all of their proprietary code, and people are allowed to build proprietary systems without documentations as to what's inside. A black box so to speak. Just get to the point (Microsoft is a monopoly) and quit dancing around the issue.


RE: Ridiculous
By rcsteiner on 3/31/2006 1:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
So why is Microsoft being forced to give out this information when a lot of other businesses don't?

Because the EU has ruled them a monopoly and ruled that the lack of documentation regarding various protocols is causing harm in the market.

So why don't the governments just get to the point and call Microsoft a Monopoly?

Uh -- they have already:

http://swpat.ffii.org/lisri/04/cec ms0202/index.en....

Why aren't readers here keeping yup with the news? The EU ruling happened ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO!!!


RE: Ridiculous
By Scorpion on 3/31/2006 2:09:57 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah you're right. I'm misinformed. On this one issue.

I was under the impression that the EU did what we did here in the US, try to slap MS on the wrist, but not going so far as to calling them a Monopoly. Well they went so far as to call them a monopoly and I'm glad.

Forgive my ignorance.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 2:35:54 PM , Rating: 4
OK, fine - the EU has labeled Microsoft a monopoly. What does that mean.

Let me start by saying that consumers decided to make Microsoft a monopoly by choosing to purchase Microsoft products. Nobody made them do it. Their monopoly status was not handed to them from a government, such as in the case in the U.S. with many utilities - cable TV, gas, electric, phone, etc. in many parts of the country.

Microsoft probably did leverage their market share to get more (something most businesses do, by the way), and they should be directed to stop of course when they break the law. But this doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly of choice. At any time, people can (and do) choose to not purchase anything more from Microsoft. In this case, I think that prosectution of such a monopoly, or giving them special rules like that they have to disclose source code and/or document all their interfaces is totally wrong. Why should they have to comply with rules/laws that would not apply to another company doing the same thing that has less market share? Why should they have to give away their IP? Who developed and paid for these interfaces? Why should they be given away to their competitors for free? Why is it right that the government forces Microsoft to give away that which rightly belongs to it? Why do they feel that society has a "right" to Microsoft's intellectual property, just because they have the majority of market share?

Finally, what "harm" has been done? The harm has been done to competitors that did not do as good a job as Microsoft. How did consumers get "harmed"? Look at the value that Microsoft software has contributed to both individuals and businesses all through the years. People knew about the value of the software, and made the purchase decisions. They could have chosen to purchase other software. Nobody held a gun to their head and told them they had to. Years later after having chosen to buy the software, and received the benefits of it, now some people decide they don't like the outcome (a big corporation), and try to find ways to take it apart? That is just crazy in my optinion.

These decisions by the EU are just part of a socialist agenda designed to more equally distribute wealth amongst its citizens. All the claims of "harm" and "monopoly" are just rationalizations for these governments to do what they think is right. Microsoft of course has to play along, and will do what it can to minimize its exposure. I think this sitation needs to considered in this overall context.


RE: Ridiculous
By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post.


RE: Ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
After a few years, there is no difference between a "monopoly of choice" and a regular monopoly. The free market is destroyed either way, and consumers are harmed by the lack of competition even if they are blissfully ignorant.

No, the difference is that nobody is forcing you to buy Microsoft products. You can buy a Mac, or run Linux on your PC - there are other choices.

Why do "blissfully ignorant" people even have a right to be protected from their own choices?

quote:
As for this being a socialist agenda - hmmm. Actually I'd say it is more capitalist

I don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.


RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/2006 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
Ouch, forgot to prview. Anyway...


quote:

No, the difference is that nobody is forcing you to buy Microsoft products. You can buy a Mac, or run Linux on your PC - there are other choices.

Why do "blissfully ignorant" people even have a right to be protected from their own choices?



Most businesses and consumers are tied to Microsoft OS's on the desktop (and server) for many reasons. This in and of itself is not a problem, the problem starts when Microsoft abuses this power by restricting entry into the software market due to it's control over the OS market.


quote:

don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.


The government is not taking anything from Microsoft, they are making them document their OS API's to create a level playing field in the software market. Do you think it would be good for the economy if Microsoft became the sole provider of all software that runs on Windows becuase they decided to remove all outside access to their API's? If this was okay, AT&T would still be the only phone company, and you would have to buy an AT&T phone from them, and only them. Sadly, this is starting to happen again with cell phone's, but that's getting pretty far off topic.


RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/2006 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 1
Attempting fix of open quote.



RE: Ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 3/31/2006 5:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.

Then I would suggest you read some economy textbooks. Capitalists only care about 1 thing - maintaining the free market. Anything, and I mean anything, that helps the free market is what a capitalist likes. And monopolies hurt the free market, so anything that can be done to stop a monopoly is good. This is the very reason monopolies were declared illegal. It wasn't some socialist saying someone is getting too rich. Those laws were put in place by free market economists who saw that capitalism was being threatened.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
This probably depends on the capitalist. While a monopoly might erode free markets, most capitalists are also against government regulation as well.

I don't think that any capitalist would advocate forced turnover of IP (code and/or documentation) by one company to its competitors, especially when the link between providing this information and "correcting the free market" is so weak. The logic there doesn't make sense.

Let's get this straight, EU wants MS to give API information to competitors for Windows server, so that other companies can write apps for Windows server? Exactly what wrong does that right? As I said in another post, MS already has great docs for their APIs. Also, MS does not have a monopoly in severs (far from it). So how does this solve anything?


RE: Ridiculous
By glennpratt on 4/2/2006 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it does fall under the capitalist view, because the role of government in a capitalist society is to make sure capitalism works. When a monopoly forms, whatever the reason, capitalism has broken down.

Now, is the EU being unbelievable selective and unfair when targeting MS and not ending other monopolies, like state mandated monopolies? YES.

When anticapitalist policies favor the EU, they will exploit them without hesitating.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is a rare case in which monopoly status is achieved through simply offering better products, however, now it has achieved this status there is a risk that it may start to become increasingly inefficient, to the detriment of the consumer. A monopoly is an example of market failure, something which in a free market economy should, at the very least be regulated to avoid the very economic system from failing, therefore the EU does have a right to bring this case to court in order to protect the consumer.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:44:45 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft is a rare case in which monopoly status is achieved through simply offering better products, however, now it has achieved this status there is a risk that it may start to become increasingly inefficient, to the detriment of the consumer. A monopoly is an example of market failure, something which in a free market economy should, at the very least be regulated to avoid the very economic system from failing, therefore the EU does have a right to bring this case to court in order to protect the consumer.
I find your views on the EU laughable. It is not some type of socialist conspiracy, indeed, at the very most the EU follows the path of social democracy rather than democratic socialism, the two are fundementally different. Claims of harm and monopoly ARE NOT rationalisations for governments to do whats right, they are fundementally bad for the consumer, and, in the longer term, for the economies of various nations around the globe.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
I apologise for posting that twice.