Slashdot Log In
Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Dec 22, 2004 08:48 AM
from the euros-to-donuts dept.
from the euros-to-donuts dept.
smnicoll writes "The European Court of First Instance has thrown out Microsoft's appeal to have penalties for the abuse of monopoly suspended, reports BBC News Online.
'Microsoft's application for interim measures is therefore dismissed in its entirety,'
The court's statement said. 'The evidence adduced by Microsoft is not sufficient to show that implementation of the remedies imposed by the Commission might cause serious and irreparable damage.' The commission's case is mainly focused on Microsoft's integration of Windows Media Player into the operationg system and the effects that has on the ability of Real Networks and Apple to get their rival players used." Similar stories at Bloomberg, CNET, and Reuters (via CNN).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Choke on it (Score:4, Funny)
Precedent.. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
has some of the better comments from the bigwigs at Redmond..
My favourite being:
Re:Precedent.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would love to see Microsoft not do business outside the United States. Can you imagine the sheer magnitude of the celebration parties that would take place in the rest of the world?
Re:Precedent.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mandate, not precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the point. They were "in trouble" because they bundled a media player with their OS. Nobody is saying MSFT can't distribute their media player [crappy as it may be]. Just they can't include it in the OS.
What microsoft has to realize is that if they didn't market 95/98 so poorly [e.g. you can watch movies and play mp3s, etc...] and peddle these half baked programs [stupid backup/anti-virus/etc] and simply focus on a solid core OS.... they would be better off.
They could still sell their other software but if I walked into a store and bought windows I would not be installing 1.5GB of useless software that I'll simply replace with other implementation then pray someone with a net connection doesn't look at my box wrong lest they exploit it.
All about choice.
Tom
Parent
Re:Mandate, not precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mandate, not precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
Though eventually FOSS OS'es will erode win32's hold sufficiently that they will lose critical mass.
All in all my biggest gripes with Windows iare
1. It's too expensive. 300$ for an OS is what I paid for my CPU [thereabouts]. I value my AMD64 more than windows.
2. It's too "feature bundled". I'd prefer a smaller install of the core components and let
Re:Mandate, not precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
I both agree and disagree. I agree that they would be better off because they would have a more secure OS. However, I disagree because if they did follow your advice, they would not be half the size they are now. One of the reasons that MS became so big (well, besides being evil) is that they made the OS easier for the user t
Whoa there! (Score:5, Funny)
Surely a media player is an integral part of the operating system, just like a web browser, some card games, and a paper clip.
you mean (Score:3, Insightful)
i would be more concerned about the integration of IE into windows but then again that is just my opinion
Re:you mean (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft can go to radio websites, online video suppliers etc and says 'Hey! 90% of your users are running windows, and they ALL have windows media player and our nice DRM-enabled codecs, then you might as well stream/upload your content in our nice low-cost codec. AND we can update the player remotely and automatically if the DRM gets hacked.'
These sites then go 'Hmm. 90% of our customers have these codecs and the player, and they can't uninstall it even if they want to? We'll u
MS to make MediaPlayer free version of windows (Score:5, Informative)
Enough is Enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
It just seems like a waste of time and so 5 years ago. Market has changed, economy has changed and believe it or not there is competition and i don't think any of these lawsuits had anything to do with building the open market we have today.
Remember, this lawsuit and appeal will only affect people who choose to support microsoft products. This doesn't make linux or apple more prevelant. This doesn't stop contracts with vendors and this doesn't do much to open windows up.
I don't get it how the governments on both sides have attacked microsoft for being closed, proprietary and "cheating" the system with the hooks and features they only know about yet companies like SCO are suing for billions to try and make sure that it's code remains proprietary, remains closed and remains controlled.
doesn't make sense
No, it isn't enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if you're one of the tens of thousands Microsoft's greed and deceit has harmed financially.
I'm so sick of the fallacy that because there is [insert some terrible world problem here], we should turn a blind eye to [insert lessor injustice here]. I'm even more sick of the ugly (all too American, these days) mentality that if an injustice doesn't affect you, you shouldn't worry about it or care (and indeed, if an injustice benefits you, however indirectly, you should somehow support it). Enough of that nonsense already!
Injustice is injustice, whether it affects Linux or not. Harm is harm, and it should be fought everywhere. Yes, software patents need to be stopped in Europe and overturned in the US. Yes, SCO's executives should be in prison. And yes, Microsoft should pay the piper for their years of anti-competative, greedy and deceitful behavior, irrespective of what the market has done to try and mitigate the consiquences of said behavior. "The market" may or may not have adapted (it is highly debatable that there's much of a free market at all when it comes to PC desktops), but certainly those who were run out of business and had their livelihoods ruined by Microsoft's illegal activities didn't have that option, and Microsoft owes society, and arguably those individuals, some reparations in addition to ceasing and desisting in their behavior.
A child misbehaves, and a decent parent won't just require the child stops, they'll punish the child in some way as a disincentive for the child starting up again the moment the parent's back is turned.
Microsoft is one big ugly ill-behaved child that needs a good, hard spanking and a great deal of corrective behavior.
Parent
I've not been served any injustice (Score:5, Insightful)
I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris.
I chose to use Internet explorer and i chose to use Netscape and now i choose to use Firefox.
I also chose to use windows media player over everything else and i agree that the media player should be fully integrated with the OS because that is a feature we as in windows users request just as sound in kde/linux is done.
I don't think there is any injustice in the practices the EU are suing for. I don't want the EU suing so anoter crappy business (Real Audio) can get in with spyware and take over my pc - if anything Microsof thas been the most cooth over keeping things clean and protecting your consumer rights.
Server code doesn't need to be shared either. Thats like telling Oracle they need to share there IP because other databases that are emulating them are having to hack support or use proprietary systems.
Please tell me how microsoft has and continues to stimmy competition, the market and harm consumers?
Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?
Parent
120 days (Score:4, Interesting)
Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)
Raising the bar (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of Media player v. Real, Real has to work harder to differntiate its product from MS to get people to actually use it. It's been my experience that Real hasn't had a big problem getting their client onto people's computers.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]
Microsoft's "fix" (Score:3, Insightful)
Making things competative (Score:5, Insightful)
Making Microsoft unbundle components of the OS is a weak solution. Microsoft will do that but so something like like ask the user every week if they want to install it.
The real solution would be to force all PC vendors to include a option to buy the hardware without a OS and when doing so it must be listed with full credit of the OEM cost of Windows. So when a vendor says it includes $200 of software, I should be able to get $200 off if I buy it without an OS. Vendors could also offer Linux and BSD options. Make Microsoft contracts with the hardware vendors void as they are anti-competative.Because one of the big problems is that vendors like Dell, Sony and others do not give us a choice. For those running Linux or a BSD, you still have to buy a product that pays Microsoft extortion.
And if the US courts had any guts they would pass such a judgement instead of folding up like a house of cards
How about the bootloader? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bootloader license between Microsoft and OEMS states that the Microsoft bootloader must be installed as the primary bootloader and also that the MS bootloader must only be used to boot MS OS's.
Microsoft can revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to offer.
When companies are denied the possibility of shipping computers with Windows AND any other OS without losing favor with Microsoft there is no way for any other OS to get a foot in the door.
Great OLD article about the bootloader issue and the demise of BeOS: http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/ [birdhouse.org]
Litigate instead of innovate. (Score:3, Insightful)
They force the media player to run some component as a startup item. They develop their own proprietary format (that in most cases is inferior to Windows Media). They refuse to share the format with competitors. They bombard the user with splash screens, registration and upgrade prompts. They cram enough advertising into the players that it reaches the point of user punishment so that they can have further reason for an upgrade. They add components that intrude into areas outside of music playing such as video and web whether the user asks for it or not. They forcibly run some sort of agent that constantly checks for or prompts for upgrades.
Now with all this why would I want some third party media player? All I asked for is to listen to some music. I think in the year 2004 that my computer should be able to do it easily the moment I plug it in. My Apple can do it. My Linux box can do it. Shouldn't my XP box be able to do it? Why would you ask Microsoft to unbundled WMP from Windows? If you want me to use your media player instead just do one simple thing: write a better one and don't make me swallow a bunch of crap with it. No one seems to be able to do this so instead of trying they go cry to their lawyer and the next thing you know my PC can no longer play media when I take it out of the box.
People whine too much about Microsoft being unfair and having a monopoly. They also gripe about the inferiority of their products. Well guess what? You can't have it both ways. If they are so inferior why don't you just beat them? Probably because you suck. Look at Firefox. Do you see them whining? Do you see them suffering from Microsoft's monopoly? No. They just STFU and wrote a better product. Somehow they managed to do it without cramming a bunch of unwanted crap in with it; AMAZING!!
So stop litigating instead of innovating. Stop being greedy and you might get what you're after. MS isn't that hard to beat you just have to stop whining and suing long enough to do it.
Re:Litigate instead of innovate. (Score:3, Informative)
Better players exist today. They have more features, more codecs to choose from, run faster, etc. The problem is that most people just won't bother to go and download another movie player if they got one with the OS. So by MS bundling the media player with the OS the create an incentive for sites _producing_ media to use their format. This opens a revenue stream to Microsoft that would not be available to them if people did not have WMP on their machines.
This is exactly what
live by the sword, die by the sword... (Score:3, Insightful)
Help me understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
I buy an Apple System, it comes with OS-X, Quicktime, iChat, iMail, and Safari. In order for most software made to run on a mac (games, office software, design software etc...) you need to have the latest version of OS-X AND Quicktime installed. I can install Media Player for OS-X, I can install various Divx Codecs, and Mozilla/IE.
I buy a Dell, it comes with XPSP2, Direct X, Windows Media player, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and IE. In order for games to run I need the latest version of Direct X. In order for my software to run I need the latest version of XP. I can install Quicktime, Real Player, and various Divx Codecs. I can also install Mozilla.
I build a system. It comes with nothing. I install Redhat, Suse, or Mandrake Linux (your noobie friendly flavors) with the default settings it installs the OS, some Open Office app, some media player and some chat program.
Now what is the problem with what MS is doing?
The argument I here is that because Media Player is incorporated it makes it hard for Real Player and other players to work. However on my PC at home Quicktime and Real Player work just fine. If I don't feel like using Media Player I simply change the file associations. This can be done from the noob level of simply clicking the "box" that says "have quicktime play all these file types" and automagically every media file will try to open in quicktime thereafter.
If what MS is doing is so bad, why doesn't anyone go after Apple? I love my G5, but Apple has a lot stronger arm and closed mind when it comes to what is incorporated with OSX and what can be made to run on it than anyone else.
MS is a monopoly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so fast... (Score:5, Informative)
If the eds had used my submitted write-up instead (mumble, mutter) then you'd have known that this is only the second-highest court in the EU. Although the ruling was pretty damning, it's still possible that MS will appeal to the European Court of Justice, who could overturn the decision. Fortunately, given the feeling everywhere else in Europe, this doesn't seem likely, but the air isn't completely clean yet.
BTW, if it stands, this is a hit against MS on two major counts: the original ruling required them to open up various information for interoperability purposes, and to produce a version of Windows without Media Player integrated.
Parent
Re:Not so fast... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but find part of this a little sad. We've been so completely bullied by MS that we actually believe that the consumer being able to say no to free a "portion of the OS" is a major hit against the software maker.
This is not, in reality, a hit on Microsoft at all. It
Re:This is great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:People need to stop flaming (Score:3, Informative)
It is *our* view and we cherish it. Doesn't it ever surprise you that there aren't nearly as many opponents of Open Source? Wonder why that is
Re:People need to stop flaming (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I have a negative view of Microsoft. How did I get it? By using their software, and paying attention to their business practices! It's not like I woke up one day from a troubled sleep and cried "Microsoft is teh suck! From now on I will believe this truth without paying attention to what they do!" Um, no.
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Informative)
The point is, and the point that the European court has decided on, is that you CANNOT USE A MONOPOLY YOU ALREADY HAVE TO UNFAIRLY TRY TO GET ANOTHER ONE.
Repeat after me. Microsoft can give away or sell media player. What they can't do is use their monopoly on operating systems to aid them getting one in media players. Those are the rules you have to play by once you are in a monopoly position
Parent
Re:The question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
A monopoly would be microsoft prohibiting real video from making a client. A monopoly would be blocking winDVD and powerdvd from market share (or any other add-on vendor)
Instead all of these companies making media players are making millions. Real is highly succesfull with Listen.com services, Windvd and powerdvd sell millions and infact WMP required a 3rd party purchased DVD program for playback and i'm sure that made people happy.
WMP 10 even offers competing stores in its player.
OS/2 had a media player befor Windows - was that a monopoly? The entire workplace shell was integrated as everything was an object in essence so while IBM shipped a standard plugin you chould choose to run whatever you wanted in the end run - no diference then microsoft.
Heck, IBM was also the first to ship a web browser with the OS.
OS/2 defigned more of the market then Microsoft could ever take credit for and just goes to prove that microsoft had better marketing and i'm sure some nasty tactics to win the market - however they're not being anti-competitive by including basic features as a part of the os.
Parent
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
According to both the U.S. and European courts, you are wrong. MS is legally a monopoly.
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft [usdoj.gov] of maybe this one [com.com], or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant [aol.com] take. I could add ot
Re:Just goes to show you.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show you.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
OK, I know this is really hard for some people to understand, but having a monopoly causes capitalism to fail. Capitalism works because of competition. Without competition capitalism just funnels money from one group to another without any work being done.
No one complains about Apple bundling itunes or quicktime because they are not a
Re:Just goes to show you.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bribing politicians can't get them out of this one.
You will be surprised, but not in a good way.
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the packaging, it's the bundling. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can remove up2date from Redhat distros. Same thing for apt-get and Portage. But you can't remove WMP any more than you can remove IE from Windows. You're stuck with it. And having it on a server makes about as much sense as having IE on a server.
Parent
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not a monopoly.
Microsoft, however, are a convicted monopolist. When you're a monopoly, the rules are different and you can't use your monopoly desktop to legally "shut off the air supply" to competing vendors.
Parent
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:5, Interesting)
The best the EU can do is fine MS and order them to unbundle software. Personally, I'd like MS to have to unbundle *everything*, including Notepad, and leave it up to the OEM to decide what MS software to add (on an a la carte basis to the OEM) to their basic software load. So, for example, HP in Europe would be within their rights to install barebones Windows XP plus Firefox as the browser, but take the Microsoft components for other things - instead of being forced to bundle the entire lot as they are now.
Parent
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:3, Informative)
Companies don't have any inalienable rights, they have the rights given to them by the law and it is down to Microsofts violation of those laws that it is in the situation it's in now.
The EU has recognised the problem Microsoft is causing in the market and unlike the US is taking practical steps to repair and mitigate the damag
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that Red Hat package up2date, but they also package yum - you've got a choice as to which you use.
If MicroSoft packaged RealPlayer and Quicktime as well then probably noone would complain. In the same way, if Ford made 95% of the world's cars and they only put Ford stereos in them the other stereo manufacturers would have cause
Re:Serves 'em right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Integration (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not the same thing. Yes it would have been the same thing if Apple had been a monopoly.
As has been said many times before, being a monopoly places more restrictions on what you can do compared to when you are not a monopoly.
Re:Integration (Score:5, Informative)
No, since Apple is not a monopoly.
Only one of those operating systems is a monopoly. And antitrust-law says that using your monopoly in one area to gain monopoly in other areas is against the law. MS used their OS-monopoly to gain monopoly in web-browsers. Now they tried to gain monopoly in the streaming-media markets, by using their OS-monopoly. And that is against the law.
I find it really surprising that some people simply do not "get it".
Parent
Re:Who are they considering their real competitor? (Score:3, Interesting)
So I can easily use QuickTime with the files it supports and VLC for others and restrict Windows Media Player for listening to NPR (I really like All Songs Considered). I never have
Oh and you're right on about Winam
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are a convicted monopolist. Do you know what tat ACTUALLY means? it measn tyou cannot ABUSE that monopoly in order to monopolise other areas, ref IE, and now WMP
so yes, they can offer it free, however you cannot include it with the package and deliberatley exclude (via OEM contracts) other companies from bundling additional players. It gives you another monopoly.
It isnt about cash. And the fact they may be based partl in the US makes not a squa
Re:It's Still a Tricky Issue (Score:3, Informative)
I don't consider Microsoft to be a monopoly, because no law forces you to use their OS.
Similarly Standard Oil was not a monopoly because you could go refine oil yourself, or use whale fat. Heck you did not need to use oil at all, just make a torch.
Name me one other company that sells operating systems and makes a profit on it. Apple makes it's money on the hardware. So does Sun. IBM makes it on services and hardware. RedHat makes money on services. All of these companies will sell you an OS, but no
Do we need to drill your skull..... (Score:3)