Microsoft Facing European Sanctions 420
Shakrai writes "CNN and Money Magazine are reporting that a draft decision by the EU committee overseeing the Microsoft investigation appears to recommend fairly severe sanctions against our favorite software company. The article states that the ruling will likely force Microsoft to offer a second version of Windows without 'built-in audiovisual software' (Windows Media Player) for EU customers. While this sounds like a good thing, the article also mentions that Microsoft has an appeals process and will likely get an injunction against enforcement while they pursue said appeal, which may take years."
Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the average windows user wouldn't want to have to play around with selecting/installing video playback software when all they want to do is playback a clip they've downloaded.
My poor Mum!!!
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:2)
I'm sure the average windows user wouldn't want to have to play around with selecting/installing video playback software when all they want to do is playback a clip they've downloaded.
My poor Mum!!!
give your mum one of those [frozentech.com].
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:True (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they can do but why would they ? They can't buy a cheaper version of Windows without a media player so there's no point in them shopping around for a cheaper alternative.
Stripping out Media Player from Windows will allow the OEM's to judge Media Player vs it's rivals on a fair footing, e.g. knowing the cost of each application.
In theory anyway, I hope there is some provision that the two versions of windows will need to maintain some kind of sensible price differentiation.
Re:True (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds sensible to me
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Insightful)
since they compete with similar products on the market
.No, since they do not use some form of lock-in mechanism to prevent the users for using other products.
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Informative)
Nor does WMP. I can still install iTunes, Winamp or whatever else. And iTunes has the same DRM for media that you buy from their store.
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:5, Insightful)
And another one's gone, and another one's gone...
Oh, sorry.
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor can I take a DRM encoded AAC file, nor a Realplayer file, and play it in just any player. But I know that Winamp will be able to play DRM encoded WMP files.
Don't want DRM lock-in then don't buy from the music stores that sell them with DRM, which are becoming fewer and far between. But even if you stay MP3 or ogg, all three of the player will play them just fine.
So how is one a troll pointing out a simple fact that you can still install other programs if you so choose?
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, it's not a Microsoft-exclusive DRM issue... yet. But if WMP becomes a de-facto standard, DRM will be de-facto in the hands of Microsoft.
Whatever you think of DRM, I think you'll agree that it better be controlled by governments (UE, US...) who are after all elected by voters, than by a corporation, wh
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure the average windows user wouldn't want to have to play around with selecting/installing $SOFTWARE
Then the average windows user shouldn't have bought a computer.
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with this. Who does this hurt? Not anyone who reads this site. We can all pick and choose our codecs and install the media player of our choice. No, it's the newbie, who has no clue what to do, they are going to be the one hurt by this. I think Bill and Co. need a swift kick in their pants, but removing MP is not goi
Market for video playing software (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's convenient to get all of that stuff included with your operating system. But if you remember, there used to be a market for things like browsers and video playback software. That market is all but gone, thanks to Microsoft including these products with their OS. I know, there is something called Mozilla for us staunch MS-haters. But good luck trying to sell (or even give) your alternative browser to the public at large.
I don't feel too bad about MS including such things with their OS, even though I am sure producers of, say, video editing software are having nightmares about MS including that functionality with Windows in a few years time. it's hard to draw the line: sure, no one would argue against operating systems needing a decent file manager, for example. Yet people used to make a living developing and selling separate file managers, a long time ago.
What I do have a problem with, is that MS sometimes not just includes browsers and video software with the OS, but made sure that it was rather hard to install an alternative product as well. That is what they should be punished for... but this ruling doesn't really accomplish that. As far as browsers and video playback software is concerned, it's all water under the bridge, and you correctly note that it will be consumers who will be hurt by removing these from the OS. MS probably doesn't care a great deal.
I would have preferred a big fine for MS, to make it clear what is unacceptable behaviour. It has to hurt if it's to heal.
Re:Market for video playing software (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The ability to use non-Microsoft products is obviously a good thing but that's very different from the absence of the Microsoft products being a good thing.
2)We're not talking about MS selling a base version and an enhanced version. It will be a full version and a crippled version with functionality yanked out. With Microsoft having every reason to make it work as badly as possible.
I want Mozilla and iTunes to work. I couldn't care less about whether the MS functionality on the system remains or not. This thing is such a pointless exercise I can't imagine whom they think it will benefit.
Re:Why wouldn't I want windows to play back videos (Score:3, Informative)
From Dictionary.com:
operating system
n.
Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it.
Source: The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright (C) 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
operating syst
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd fine them a dime for each security problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd fine them a dime for each security problem. (Score:2)
Re:I'd fine them a dime for each security problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
If monetary penalties were imposed on security bugs (or any other bugs for that matter), it would wreak havoc on the software industry. And the free software community would be one of the first to burn from the full heat of it. Microsoft will still have some cash to spare, but most organizations/people that produce/write free software have limited budgets.
Re:I'd fine them a dime for each security problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about apache? It dominates the web server market. BIND for the DNS market? Or even BSD code in the MS Windows distribution? Of course, they are not monopolists, but AFAIK being a monopolist doesn't mean one has to make sure everything works perfect, while smaller entities could get away with distributing inferior products. So it's not really about being a monopolist rather than marketshare. If you're talking about marketshare, a lot of free software dominates niche markets (like in the above examples), should they be fined too?
Suppose one day Linux achieves world domination, are free software developers obligated to ensure their software is 100% bug-free?
> and has steadfastly refeused to unbundle these bug-infested products
If people use them, they use them. Unbundling it doesn't really make the situation better. Of course, those who do not use the bundled software will be less likely to be hit by these bugs, but for essential software like web browsers, media players, people will install them anyway. Of course, they might install products from other companies, but in general, it doesn't guarantee a more secure system.
> If they really believe that integrated media/internet/mail is part of the OS of the future, then they should ensure that said OS is secure
Nothing is 100% secure. Even OpenBSD has had a few holes in the past (*Only* one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!). How should one draw a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risks of a security exploit?
All in all, it all boils down to how to draw a line between "bad" Microsoft that needs to be fined, and "good" Open source software that is exempt from these charges.
Besides, once a ruling is made that software companies are liable for bugs, then more will follow.
Re:I'd fine them a dime for each security problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
That immediately puts every commercial software "company", from microsoft down to the lowliest shareware author, out of business. Is that a good thing?
If they want to bundle other applications, they should charge for those apps, and include the invoice of all the apps that the consumer is paying for. All this with the option of NOT buying certain apps for the consumer. This, I think would force MS to drop the price Windows. Figure, the total bundles price is, oh say $100, with all the bundled stuff included. Start peling off the bits you don't want, what's the price then?
Your goal here is not fairness to the consumer. Don't pretend it is. You want microsoft to be forced to create a product that is so much of a pain in the ass people don't want to install it or one that won't have enough of a feature set for people to give a damn about. Honestly, if microsoft had "played nice" and stuck to selling just the base operating system I'd be typing this on a Mac and the icon next to the story would be Steve Jobs photoshopped to look like a borg. And if not them, then who? No one? Well in that world we're all using Linux and all the downtrodden microfucked software companies who you pretend to champion are STILL out of business because instead of WMP bundled, it's MPlayer or whatever the decent FREE player for Linux happens to be this week. Net gain to said companies who are getting this protection? None. They are still irrevelent.
I can imagine some base install and then a web activation (yeah I know, we all love those) where a customer picks all the apps he wants to install, have the installer say something to the effect of "all those extra apps are gonna cost $xxx enter credit card info here:"
More crap solely aimed at pissing off customers. If Microsoft did not want business they would have adopted the "RealNetworks" model of customer irritation long ago. They do, so they didn't. Sorry it pisses you off. Sorry commercial vendors do not port to your OS. But hey, even if you do manage to put MS out of business they are still not going to write for your OS. They're going to go out of business right next to MS because the fact of the matter is that you people don't like to pay for software and have proven that you'll do nearly anything to avoid doing so.
For the case of F/OSS, tack on a clause that apps where the client can obtain source, and fix it himself (or audit it before using), is not requred to be warrantied by the author.
Well it's good to see that there will still be paying jobs for software engineers. Pity they'll all be maintenance. Also a shame for joe business owner when he needs to have something fixed or added and finally realizes that even though he's been using 'free' software that the 40 hours of development work he's about to fund would have covered a years worth of closed source that most likely would have done what he wanted out of the box.
How about this as an alternative: Govenment stays the hell out of it. Seems to me that the windows monopoly is either a myth or the people who swear that unix already won the internet (bind? apache? inn? sendmail?) or the database market (oracle? db2?) are full of shit. Which is it? Does MS own the world or do they not? Methinks they don't. And with the goverment out of it if a company wants to sell a media player they had better make one worth paying the money for.
Removing the Player Isn't the Good Part! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's always my sticking point. I'm not as much bothered that they support video playback in their default system (they also support image playback and text playback, after all) as to their generally incompatible and excessively proprietary methods.
Re:Removing the Player Isn't the Good Part! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Removing the Player Isn't the Good Part! (Score:2)
Re:Removing the Player Isn't the Good Part! (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone designs a better motion compensator, it can be knitted into the open standard. Microsoft on the other hand has been trying to lock media behind a black box. This prevents anyone from creating content, save through microsoft licensed content creation tools, and prevents content from being played on non-microsoft licensed players.
But who wins in the end? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the 'normal users' will be hit hardest, a lot of them just want their media to play and in my opinion it is the place of the Operating System to provide the functionality. We might install something better, but it doesn't hurt us to have it there even if we don't use it. I think the same is true with IE.. it has helped the new users a great deal even if it is bug ridden and crappy.
Re:But who wins in the end? (Score:5, Informative)
The aim is to free computer makers to sell Windows bundled with rival audiovisual software such as RealNetworks RealPlayer or Apple's Quicktime, the sources said.
Re:But who wins in the end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should microsoft be forced to bundle competitors' producs? What about regression testing, supporting bugs in those programs, etc?
Re:But who wins in the end? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft. Oh, you meant in the short term? Possibly users. In the long term however this stops Microsoft being able to leverage their desktop monopoly into a format monopoly (where was
In the long run it might be necessary to hurt consumers a little bit today to protect them tomorrow. Ideally the solution will involve forcing them to support a patent unencumbered license unencumbered format alongside (or instead of) wma to ensure they can't use their existing monopoly to destroy interoperability.
Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are they trying to fool? When they said this about Internet Explorer I could imagine how this could be true, but what parts of Media player might be essential for other applications???
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:2)
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, that's basically what the Commission said - right after RealNetworks demonstrated how to strip WMP from the OS. I'm amazed MS even bothered claiming it - I can only surmise that (a) they have non-geek lawyers or, (b) "we tried that lie with IE, and the dumb judge bought it, so let's try it again and see if we befuddle those dumb Euros".
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft were to make WMP a plugable component that would not break when another player was plugged in in it's place it would allow vendors and consumers to choose the best player. Microsoft cares nothing for the consumer so they make WMP such a pain to remove that most people give up trying, effectively removing their right to choose.
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:2)
This has probably gone a bit too far in restricting Microsoft's actions, though if you take in consideration
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:2)
You wouldn't have to download a new media player - the Commission are looking at forcing MS to include competitors' players. The point is to give EU consumers a choice.
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:2)
Its not MS' job to help everyone else get a foothold into the market. Its only MS' job to ensure they play fair, and I do not think bundling their own media player as an option for users to decide to use or not is somehow anti-compeitive.
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right it *isnt* MS's job to help out other rivals. But it is their job to keep their monopoly from crushing others. read: Anti-competitive tactics are a no-no.
Problem is that once MS started bundling IE, WMP, etc. into the OS, it gave users little reason to go out and find another. They have done it with IE and were convicted of it in the States, albeit weakly. Once you have a single defacto player/browser/pick your software on the desktop, which a monoploy has created and abused, the end user, ie: mom and pop, have no need to go out and get another, forcing the rivals out of business or out of money. Don't forget, Microsoft no longer cares about IE. The only reason they care about WMP is that they are now trying to leverage the dominance into other markets such as digital distribution of movies and whatnot. That sir, is anti-competitive behaviour. I'm just glad the EU has the balls to do something about it.
Re:Media player an essential part of the OS??? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought frivilous lawsuits were illegal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, its even part of the mandated accessibility/disability acts for people who require audio/visual/tactile feedback.
I for one preferr the free stuff then Real or even Quicktime.. atleast i don't have things popping up telling me useless facts (even after being disabled) or having mime type wars on my pc.
I bought windows because it was easy.
I bought linux and still do because it was powerfull.
Each has there own use, but this has got to be the most retarded lawsuit i've EVER heard of.
Re:I thought frivilous lawsuits were illegal. (Score:2)
I don't recall the name of the MSDOS 5 media player. What was it again?
Re:I thought frivilous lawsuits were illegal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Second given the joyously weird system of European law, which combines different systems from 15 countries (soon 20 or more) and 2 different leagal traditions, I wouldn't bet on frivilous lawsuits actually being illegal.
Which of course says nothing about the merits of the case.
Re:I thought frivilous lawsuits were illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've totally missed the point of this. Certainly I'm not arguing that basic sound support shouldn't be a part of an Operaring System but Media Player goes far beyond that, it is a fully featured Application.
Other companies would like to sell these kind of applications to people and make money out of it however with MS giving it away for nothing to 90% of computer users they don't have hope of selling anything.
You cannot buy Windows without Media Player, so you do not have the opportunity to compare it's price and value against other similar products.
From Microsofts point of view the current situation is very nice for them; Media Player is installed on 90% of computer users PC's, Media Player uses it's own proprietry formats, downloading music is becoming big business - suppliers are very tempted to use Media Player formats because of it's market penetration, Microsoft can call the shots.
From everyone else's point of view this is clearly a case of Microsoft using it's monopoly in the O/S system market to influence and gain control of other areas.
As I've mentioned many times (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/c
Re:I thought frivilous lawsuits were illegal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst I may not agree with, or like the products marketed by Real I would defend their right to develop and market these products with my life.
What about Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
(Just wondering other ppl thoughts, plz don't flame me...
Re:What about Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple doesn't control 90+ percent of the desktop. Because Apple isn't trying to leverage an OS monopoly into other market segments. Because Apple doesn't have a history of trying to "cut off the oxygen supply" to their competitors through use of monopoly.
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2)
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2)
THey have also taken to unbundling some of these apps, if you want to get the latest version of iMovie, iPhoto etc and selling them as an iLife package. This means that you have to pay extra for them, but I guess that is the price you pay for non bundling, as I suspect Windows users in the EU a
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2)
uh.. what was the question?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
No reason to force them (Score:4, Insightful)
"sanctions"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly difficult. The so called "sanctions" taken against MS in the U.S. were meaningless to the extent that most observers believe there was a secret backroom deal. Frankly, I cannot see what the Europeans propose having much effect on MS's monopolistic practices either.
What Microsoft would like to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
People start recording their music as WMA.
Companies sell in WMA (for the wide user base).
Stations start broadcasting in WMA (ditto).
People buy WMA devices.
People are locked into WMA forever now their media is all in WMA form and they own WMA devices.
WMA works best in Windows (and DRM WMA only works in Windows), and is a barrier to changing platforms.
Profit. Monopoly extended and locked in, and entrenched in a totally new area. Desktop monopoly (and all the other monopolies that perpetuate it and are perpetuated by it) made more secure.
THIS is why a bit of user convenience has to be sacrificed. Made media player (and all the other integrated stuff) come uninstalled on a second CD so that at least the user has to think if they want to use it.
Otherwise they will expand their monopoly one niche at a time - desktop, office, server, media, handhelds, music players, gaming consoles, televisions, cars, watches, the whole world... untill it is too late to back out.
Kind of sad... (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm not sure why anyone would post that this isn't fair, if you can't see MS is once leveraging it's desktop monopoly to control yet another market, you are blind or at least obtuse. Do we really want another Netscape on our hands, it's taken 5 years for the likes of Mozilla, FireFox and Safari to revive browser innovation while IE 6 has remained a stagnant, insecure and non-compliant piece of junk. Killing competition in browsers hurt the web, although it will be years before the useless business analyst get around to acknowledging this. We don't want the same thing to happen in media players/codecs, instant messaging or a raft of other technologies. Time to stop MS now. And vote with your damn wallets, if you don't like what MS does then switch to Mac OS X or Linux and put your money where your mouth is!
Vote With Your Feet (Score:5, Insightful)
If only more people actually did this! If even 10% of the people who complained about M$ actually did something about it, the software world would be a very different place. It's amazing the number of people who feel that they are a special case, that they have a particular special reason for not switching to something else. (Yes, in some cases those reasons are genuine, but I suspect laziness plays a large part in many.)
I try to act on principle. I've only ever owned two pieces of M$ software, for example: one was the Psion Series 3 version of AutoRoute (which doesn't really count as it was written by a separate company that got bought out shortly before release; M$ dropped it soon after), and the Mac OS X version of IE (pre-installed; I keep it as a last-resort browser and use it every few months). It's not hard, really -- it's a pain when people keep sending me Word documents, but there are various workarounds even if people won't take the hint -- and I don't feel I'm making any great sacrifices. I just don't put following the crowd as my top priority.
So, to all you people who use M$ software and complain about it: don't complain, STOP USING IT!
Standard oil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Standard oil (Score:5, Interesting)
Computer can and do run without Microsoft. They are a brand. A company can decide, at will, to no longer purchase Microsoft.
Now, a good deal of that has more to do with anti-trust tussels between the DOJ and Microsoft in the past than a lack of trying on Microsoft's part.
The legal puzzle is thus. Microsoft is de-facto standard. People equate their crap with computers. To the mundanes out there Microsoft is to computers what gas is to cars. They have done a tremendous marketing job. You really can't build a case based on consumer buying habits. People do choose to buy Microsoft Products. It may not be a particularly wise choice, or even an informed choice, but the path to destruction is often wide and well paved.
Courts are loathe to step in and tell the average man how to live their life. Where Microsoft does get into trouble is in their dealings with computer makers. One of the things to come out of the Seatlement was that Microsoft was not longer permitted to have a different pricing structure for each supplier. Nor were they permitted to charge a license fee for every computer produced, whether or not windows ships with it.
As for Microsoft's stranglehold on industry, at this point it's more like those hitchiking seeds that velcro themselves to your trousers after a walk through the woods. There are a bunch of reasons people cling to them, all annoying, and all easy to pick off one by one.
Microsoft is the architect of their own destruction. They spend their time polishing shiny things, rather than sitting down and hammering out reliable products. By reliable I mean something that runs for 3 or more years without having to be completely reformatted and re-built.
Re:Standard oil (Score:3, Informative)
Try: "We" don't have the jurisdiction. Otherwise I totally agree with you. So does The Economist, which in 1999 wrote:
--------------
[stuff deleted]
The Road Ahead
So what should Mr Klein [the judge in the US Microsoft case] suggest? His starting-point must be that any action should provide consumers with choices they do not have today, and also stimulate innovation that would have otherwise been chilled. One pote
opening windows update (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone ever thought about making MS open their windows update functions to their competitors?
Unbundling is useless if you are forced to download eleven and twenty patches after installation and media player looks like one of them.
fining companies does nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
you think MS will reduce margins if they get fined or will they pass that cost to the customer either indirectly (format lockin/upgrades etc) or directly via product price increases ?
doesn't really take a MBA to work out what they will do, fining them will not punish them at all, especially with the worlds richest people at the helm.
Lindows... (Score:2)
A simple example... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say that Office was a seperate company to Windows.
Office the company would see that making their product available on every platform would make them more money. Thus it would be so. Windows the company would have no incentive to build in special APIs for Office. Office would compete on it's merits and so would Windows, and competition COULD and WOULD exist effectivly in the marketplace.
Now, say that Office and Windows are made by the same company.
Office would by and large see that by making their product only available for Windows they would make less money but it would be worth more because every copy sold would also sell a Windows license. Windows wants to make sure that everyone who buys Windows chooses office so they do what they can to make it seem to run faster, better etc. Consumers get screwed by lack of choice.
(Obviously Office is also available for Mac, but this is due to historic pre-monopoly reasons. The same decision might be made today, but only to dodge having the AntiTrust people looking at them too sharply. If Office had been split off from Windows it would likley be available on IRIX, HPUX, AIX, Linux, BSD etc today as well as Windows and OS X.)
Windows needs 'distributions'! (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft should not be allowed to sell Windows with any additional apps whatsoever.
With Linux you have different distributions, why can't Windows work on the same principle?
You don't get Mandrake saying "Oh, we're not going to put into our distro, why should we put other people's apps in our distro's?"
The whole point of distributions is that you get loads of apps from loads of developers, and you get to select exactly what you want from the best available apps.
Having Windows distributions is the only way I see of overcoming Microsoft's anti-competitive monopoly.
Re:Windows needs 'distributions'! (Score:3, Insightful)
What if Microsoft HAD 0 software. Would you have to go out and buy your own calc.exe, notepad.exe, browser.exe, program-to-view-extension.exe, etc..
If Microsoft wasn't able to sell Windows directly then you wouldn't be able to buy Windows in this condition. If you had distribution providers, they would select which apps to install, maybe Microsoft apps, maybe replacement apps, maybe both. The fact is, you would still have the apps with which to perform your us
This may not be entirely good (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this means the Bush administration is likely to line up squarely behind Microsoft on this issue ("we can prosecute them for anti-trust, but I'll be damned if those French bastards are gonna get away with it"). Even if the goal of the European action is entirely admirable, say, they want to improve competition and open up standards, the administration will for political reasons end up opposing it.
This will result in them doing spiteful things that tend to favor proprietary software and disfavor Free software.
I guess it's not surprising that powerful people will oppose anything that lessens the control they have over others.
Microsoft can easily get out of this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Interoperability more important (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were the dictator, MS would be forced to document the file formats it is using (including all WMV formats, of course), all network protocols, and to provide sufficient NTFS documentation so that I can finally can mount /dev/hda2 with read-write soonish.
Interoperability is hard to enforce (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd have to release the formats/protocols at least six months or so before releasing the software, to prevent other developers playing continual catch-up. (Without changing them in the interim, of course.) And they'd have to be prevented somehow from hiding details that might allow subtle incompatibilities, later lock-in, or other preferential treatment. Ideally, they'd be made to release an open-source reference implementation, too.
And they'd have to show that implementing the protocol or using the format didn't infringe any patents -- not just that a patent-free method was available, but that M$ couldn't use a better, patent-encumbered method unavailable to their competitors. And that they couldn't file such patents in the future.
And so on. Time and time again, companies have learned that you can't play M$ on their own terms and break even, let alone win. They've learned a whole battery of techniques to steal an unfair advantage. And blocking them all is no easy task.
A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating ... (Score:5, Interesting)
An open letter to antitrust, competition, consumer and trade practice monitoring agency officials worldwide.
The role of trade practice and antitrust legislation is to provide the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies. In one of the most serous cases of monopolization in the information technology industry, the agencies charged with protecting the competitive process and the consumer have utterly failed to stem the offending corporation's anti-competitive practices.
The Microsoft corporation has been under continuous investigation by antitrust policing agencies since 1989. Despite this scrutiny, the Microsoft corporation, using covert and overt anti-competitive business tactics, has maintained an unabated campaign against alternatives to Microsoft Windows operating system platforms and Microsoft applications.
For years the Microsoft corporation has earned around 70% to 80% net profit from sales of its operating systems and application software. Only in areas like Thailand where Linux on the desktop has just begun to gain a foothold has Microsoft stated that it will release versions of its operating system platform and application software at a lower price to Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs) and retail consumers than is available in the rest of the modern world. Consumers benefit where real competition exists.
The world desktop operating system market remains predominantly monopolized by Microsoft. Over the last decade, Microsoft continued to lever its desktop platform monopoly to the point where it now holds a dominant position worldwide in the application office suite and web browser software markets. On its own, the current USA Department Of Justice (DOJ) settlement with the Microsoft corporation has failed to bring about any restoration of serous competition to the desktop operating system market. Microsoft continues to use similar anti-competitive business tactics in an attempt to monopolize the digital media player and the desktop services server markets. Competing vendors increasingly find that they can no longer compete with Microsoft if they limit themselves to only the traditional closed source model of software development.
In the last six years information technology vendors have adopted techniques and resources from two existing movements geared toward the construction of software. The newer open source movement, represented by the non-profit Open Source Initiative (OSI) corporation, emphasizes the licensing of software in a manner which encourages its collaborative development in an open environment. The older free software movement, represented by the non-profit Free Software Foundation (FSF), focuses on the ethical issues surrounding the licensing of software. The free software movement emphasizes freedoms which are often taken for granted outside of the field of software: the freedom to use, study how something works, improve or adapt it and redistribute.
The Free Software Foundation offers two software license schemes which are compatible with their own goals and those of the Open Source Initiative: The GNU General Public License (GPL) and the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL). Essentially, the GPL and LGPL licenses grant the recipient extra rights than that granted by copyright law. Both licenses insure that a contributer or distributer of a GPL or LGPL licensed work may not further impede downstream recipients the rights granted by the same license. Many developing software in an open source manner have realized that this benefit offered by the GPL and LGPL licenses outweigh any potential losses. The licensing also insures that no contributing or distributing vendor or group of vendors could potentially monopolize the market, insuring that real market competition dictates price. Just as the automotive industry can commonize on standards for the production
What is to come (Score:5, Insightful)
appeals (Score:4, Insightful)
So for now just speculate and pretend MS will have to abide by the sanctions. By the time the ruling does take place users will be familiar enough (if they are not already) with WMP that it would be hard for anything to take its place. If a user has purchased any addins for WMP it is unlikely for them to prefer another player. Personally I think this is more of a burden for the users because they will have to find the newest WMP to download then its 4-5 patches.
this actually is bad if not specified correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that we all realize that the PROBLEM lies in preventing the uninstallation of said items without "crippling" the OS.
I think MS should be allowed to include whatever they want, as long as the no-install/uninstall option is there and its real (as in really uninstalls the files, not just "hiding" them).
Why can't Microsoft see how easy it would be to fix this? But then again, that sort of tunnel vision is what has gotten them into the hot water they are in.
Re:this actually is bad if not specified correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
API availability (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft is still allowed to demand royalties for sharing API's and protocols (no matter how 'reasonable'), the sanctions will still be useless to Open Source and Free Software developers. What good is this to the SAMBA team? And you can forget about Red Hat finally adding NTFS-compatibility to its distributions! >:(
fines not a problem for a monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. Any financial penalties will just be passed along to the customer, as usual, who in this case does not have a choice due to the monopoly situation.
More interesting is what the EU will plan to do with the penalty money? Invest it in open source, require open file formats and standards?
Once again for luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Option 1: Windows XP with Media Player, 99 Euros.
Option 2: Windows XP without Media Player, 99 Euros.
Retail purchasers and OEM licensees will be completely free to choose either version.
No, this is not a joke. If the EUC think this is too obvious to mention and prohibit, they are in for a rude awakening.
I for one would appreciate this (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you who don't know, Media Player Classic is an open source clone of Media Player 6.4 (the default media player shipped with Win2k), and (with the right codec libs installed) will play DVD's, avi's, wmv's, ogm's, Real and QT streams. Very nice clean and easy to use interface, and hooks into standard DirectShow codecs, none of the irritations of WMP/Real/QT, and completely free (thanks Gabest!), although donations are always welcom I imagine.
Being able to completely replace WMP with MPC would be a dream come true for me, and my clients. The only thing that worried me is that MS would take their ball home, and if made to remove Media Player they would probably cripple DirectShow to such an extent that I'd have to install WMP in order to get my codec libraries to work.
As the Man in Black would say: (Score:3, Insightful)
As in the US antitrust case, these sanctions are remedies based on a false set of assumptions so the end result will not make anti-MS zealots happy.
In both cases, the legal efforts were driven by competitors who wanted to rub something, anything in Bill's face. They were hoping that they'd be able to break MS up, but failing that, they were left with remedies that don't mean much.
In the US case, for example, were Sun or Oracle really held up in their competition against MS because of secret API's? Have they added any new functionality to their products based on the new information?
In the EU case, forcing MS to provide a Media-Player-free version of Windows is unlikely to have a substantial impact on MS's market share in Europe. Just as the claim that IE was going to allow MS to take over the Internet turned out to be specious, so will similar claims for Media Player.
I see this as a MS win (Score:4, Insightful)
What's next? (Score:3, Interesting)
I noticed for the first time the other day that WinXP bundles CD-R burning functionality. I wonder how long until the makers of software like Nero start finding their market disappearing because the functionality that their software provides is now bundled into Windows already?
I wonder what other markets M$ is on its way to kill in the same way?
Re:What about linux distributions?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about linux distributions?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, no, because they're not (ab)using a monopoly position to get their own software on there.
Duh.
Re:What about linux distributions?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about linux distributions?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many distributions ship with software such as XMMS, mplayer and the gimp. Should Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and the like be fined for carrying this software?
First: no one of those distributions has a de facto monopoly in the OS market and it's trying to abuse that position to get the monopoly in other markets, such as the media players one.
Second: on the average Linux distro, you have twenty different text editors, a dozen media players, and another dozen graphic manipulation programs.
So, your is, indeed, a non sequitur.
Re:What about linux distributions?? (Score:2)
Also, whoever modded the parent as a troll is mentally retarded and needs to be put in a home for the unable-to-consider-other-opinions-or-debate-ratio
Re:stinks of hypocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with Free software and freedom. This is anti-trust legislation, and is about keeping the free market free.
Gaaah, I used "free" too many times in that post.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No wonder everyone's getting outsourced! (Score:5, Informative)
MOZILLA IS NOT SLOWER THAN IE!!!
Mozilla startup takes more time than IE, IF and only if you don't consider the time it takes to start IE at system startup. Other than that, Mozilla, and Firefox especially, literally kick the pants off of IE. There was a wonderful page I found that simply drew images and removed them repeatedly that demonstrated this, IIRC IE took about 10 times as long as Mozilla.
Re:No wonder everyone's getting outsourced! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why stop with Media Player and MS (Score:3, Insightful)
While you said this with sarcasm tags, why not consider it more seriously? Let the company assembling the package to sell at retail -- Dell, Gateway, HP being the dominant firms in the US -- assemble the complete software package to ship. Make it possible for other firms to resell Win
Re:Why stop with Media Player and MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dupe! (Score:3, Interesting)
I would call this new news. Your post is informative? Please.
Re:What about Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)