Microsoft, EU Reach Antitrust Accord 219
alphadogg writes "Microsoft appears to have reached an agreement with the European Commission that concludes an antitrust battle that has lasted a decade, Europe's top competition regulator said today. A proposal the company offered in July to address charges of monopoly abuse were dismissed as insufficient by the Commission, as well as by rivals in the software industry. But the latest iteration appears to have mollified the EC's regulator. 'We believe this is an answer,' said competition commissioner Neelie Kroes in a press conference. 'I think this is a trustful deal we are making. There can't be a misunderstanding because it is the final result of a long discussion between Steve Ballmer and me.' The new settlement offer addresses charges that Microsoft distorted competition in its favor in the market for web browsers, by giving its Internet Explorer browser an unfair advantage over rivals."
The Register points out this interesting quote from the materials Microsoft released on the subject: "Microsoft shall ensure that third-party software products can interoperate with Microsoft's Relevant Software Products using the same Interoperability Information on an equal footing as other Microsoft Software Products."
Better sources (Score:0, Informative)
Re:You've got to be kidding! (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what's worse - the possibility that he could be so naive...
This is as good a time as ever to let you know that Neelie Kroes is a woman
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:2, Informative)
That is possible, if not for the fact that if they do so, not only can the EU fire the ol' AT war machine right back up (they have lots of lovely documentation from this one just lying about they could scrutinize some more...), AND Microsoft would be breaking an actual law in plain sight. After all, it doesn't have to take a Kroes to get the word out: any lawsuit in any European country that could be connected to this anti-trust legislation and the FA mentioned 'new laws' would get instant attention from Mrs. Kroes in a heartbeat.
Microsoft will have to tread very lightly for the next 5 years to come over on the European side of the pond.
Re:monopoly abuse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better sources (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Never had problems... (Score:2, Informative)
Never had problems... installing Firefox on windows. What is all the fuss about?
This is about antitrust tying/bundling. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up or simply ignore this article as over your head.
Re:Stupid, short-sighted decision (Score:1, Informative)
this is stupid. microsoft should have every right to add or remove functionality from it OS as it wants to. all monopoly legislation is is handcuffing a big company that has succeeded at its buisness and letting little companies who make inferior products(usually) take a swing at it. when microsoft adds functionality to there OS it allows me the consumer to have that with my standard software package. if you want an OS with NO functionality you should just stick with linux. oH and by the way all the other OS companies bundle different functionality with there OS its just they don't have a good enought product to compete.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:5, Informative)
"Microsoft shall ensure that third-party software products can interoperate with Microsoft's Relevant Software Products using the same Interoperability Information on an equal footing as other Microsoft Software Products."
This is similar to the terms of the US settlement from a while back. The promised to document all protocols and interfaces. So we can already see if they would live up to the new promise.
Before the US settlement they didn't publicly document all of their protocols. After the settlement they published many Word documents online, but for most you had to agree to incredibly restrictive terms to download them. IIRC they also charged money for some. And back then you had to purchase Word (or Windows and download a free Word viewer) to read the specifications.
Then, as expected, they continued to change their protocols and interfaces. So even if you did keep up with all the documents you couldn't possibly keep up with Microsoft's own interoperability.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:3, Informative)
And back then you had to purchase Word (or Windows and download a free Word viewer) to read the specifications.
Couldn't you open it in OpenOffice.org under Linux ?
Re:Just use Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no. They became the dominant OS because IBM used MS' OS for its PC and XT. In business, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" so IBM's PCs became dominant. By the time Compaq cloned an IBM, DOS was the standard office OS, and hardware manufacturers used MS's OS because then their machine would be "IBM compatible".
People used MS' OSes at home because 1) that's what they had a work and 2) that's what came pre-installed on their computer.
If the CP/M guy hadn't missed that meeting, and Billl Gates' parents weren't both lawyers who worked for Microsoft, chances are your PC wouldn't be running Windows now. Microsoft owes everything to IBM.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:4, Informative)
According to the SAMBA team, Microsoft has actually been fairly open (both in terms of providing docs and in terms of providing info/answers/clarification) when it comes to the protocols SAMBA deals with.
Re:monopoly abuse (Score:3, Informative)
"can Dell license OS X for inclusion on their computer systems aimed at the home and corporate markets?
Of course not. The Steve would never allow OS X on computers that are so... common.
Can Dell install Solaris or Ubuntu replacing Windows on the systems they ship, without going out of business?
Of course not, the demand for them in the market is comparatively miniscule.
No they can't, except for a few niche markets, so MS has them over a barrel.
I think you'll find it's the customers who have Dell over a barrel. They would be the ones who dictate whether or not the computers Dell sells will be bought.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:4, Informative)
According to the SAMBA team, Microsoft has actually been fairly open (both in terms of providing docs and in terms of providing info/answers/clarification) when it comes to the protocols SAMBA deals with.
Yeah and it only took what, three years after they were convicted and ordered to open up the protocols, before they complied?
Re:monopoly abuse (Score:3, Informative)
For example, if MS makes them pay for the cost of developing Internet Explorer and bundles that cost into the cost of Windows, when there was a preexisting market for web browsers, [...]
The primary tenuous assumption here being that there was ever a distinct market for web browsers.
That's not even slightly tenuous when you understand how the law defines markets. There does not have to be direct sales, just profit. Mozilla makes money today by creating a web browser.
The second being that the price of Windows would have changed if it didn't have IE.
Which is not something that is necessary or even needs to be proved to hold up in court. Unless the developers working on IE do so out of charity, it assumed a bundled costs by the courts otherwise it would always be impossible to prove such violations. Just because you call something "free" in marketing does not mean economists or judges accept your claim at face value. When you do a buy one get one free sale at the grocery store, you can still sue the maker is still liable for and damages because of the second product. The same is true here. It's bundled, but since it only comes with a purchased product it is bundling.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that every single aspect of Windows's functionality introduced with and since Windows 95, is an antitrust violation ?
We've had this discussion before. Pre-existing separate markets are the criteria for abuse. Not every feature added to Windows, only those added once MS had monopoly power that duplicated the functionality of products from pre-existing separate markets. That does include a lot of items MS has not been taken to court for yet, but that doesn't mean they are not illegal.
Re:Just use Linux (Score:3, Informative)
You state that MS was "convicted" (your expertise is slipping) of leveraging their desktop OS to gain an advantage in the server OS space but you don't provide any evidence that indeed they did.
What you slept through the dozens of Slashdot articles and major news outlet coverage of the previous EU antitrust trial. Yes they were CONVICTED as antitrust law is criminal law in the US and EU. â497 million, the largest fine they'd ever handed out when MS stalled on complying with the order for years.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-5060463.html [cnet.com]
How much market share did competing products lose?
How could anyone say? What portion of the growth MS experienced was due to their criminal activities and what was due to honest competition? Would they have been losing market share if they were not breaking the law? No one will ever know for certain.
How much market share did competing products lose?
Linux lost about 7% and other UNIX versions about 13% the same over that time period. It's hard to get reliable numbers.
Is MS now the market leader in Sever[sic] OS's? Have they ever been?
By revenue, yes they do have the largest chunk of the market at about 38%.
This is about preserving the status quo in the server space, to reduce competition by holding back MS.
How is giving all servers a level playing field and letting all of them access Windows desktops the same way, holding MS back? Are you implying they can only win market share by artificially breaking other server OS's instead of by making the best server?
It's not about increasing competition it's about decreasing it.
Yeah in Bizaaro World letting monopolies leverage their monopolies into new markets increases competition. You're one of the worst MS apologizers I've ever heard. Even if you don't agree with the laws on the books, everyone has to follow them. MS wouldn't even exist if the same laws had not been enforced against IBM in the first place. Now MS should be allowed to break them at will? Frankly, I think you're an idiot or an astroturfer.
Re:Just use Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and to answer your question directly: Netscape, Word Perfect, and Digital Research. The first and the third WON court cases based on the evidence that Microsoft violated anti-trust law. I'm not sure about Word Perfect, but I believe there may have been a judgment in that as well.
The DR-DOS case should be ESPECIALLY familiar to a low ID guy like yourself, since the case and its aftermath, including the SCO debacle, have been chronicled here for years.
Re:Typical European Protectionism (Score:1, Informative)
Norway isn't in the EU
The EU have initiated proceedings [europa.eu] against plenty of European companies, but because in the US your heads are stuck in the sand, the only ones you hear about are MS and Intel:
That's just European companies in 2009.
You're completely wrong, yet could have saved yourself from making such an ignorant comment with one simple Google search. Instead you chose to open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
Typical unique American blend of ignorance and arrogance; because that 'Buy American' policy of Obama's isn't protectionism at all! Get your own house in order before -- wrongly -- criticising others.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:2, Informative)