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."
I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this actually happens, it will be a Very Good Thing for the world in general, as Microsoft will no longer be legally able to keep changing their protocols to break access by non-Microsoft software.
Given their track record, though, I don't believe for a minute that Microsoft will actually make all the information available in a clear and usable format. More likely they'll release some information that looks nice, to show what good boys they're being, then release some more information terribly scrambled, and keep most of the information to themselves, because by that point the EU will be paying less attention to them and they'll have to take them back to court to get them to do anything more.
Same old story.
And yes, I am a terminal cynic. Why do you ask? ;-)
Dan Aris
still can't uninstall Iexplorer (Score:5, Insightful)
And with 'search' going to be directly embedded into the applications, the 'choice' of browser is going to become moot.
Stupid, short-sighted decision (Score:3, Insightful)
This only affects the browser market where Microsoft is steadily losing ground anyway. The fact of the matter is that the operating system itself is still untouched and Microsoft still has no penalty for pulling more and more functionality into the OS itself.
The problem has never been just browsers or messaging utilities or office suites or default home pages. It is about how Microsoft uses its monopoly power on the desktop to stifle competitors. This could have been handled years ago except the American judge couldn't stay awake long enough to do anything but parrot the prosecuting attorney's notes.
MS should have been broken into an OS company and an apps company long ago. But it didn't happen, and we're all still the worse off for it. Trying to change anything by half-assed measures like forcing the user to choose a browser is just not going to work.
Re:"There can't be a misunderstanding" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Microsoft, tomorrow...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, too bad that quote didn't come from Apple.
It's FAKE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was told repeatedly, on slashdot and elsewhere, that offering a choice could never work. The script was to complicated, among other things. You can't download anything until the browser is installed, among other things. That Microsoft couldn't offer browsers which they didn't own, among other things.
After all those highly intelligent individuals convinced me that this browser ballot was impossible, I KNOW it has to be fake! Those screenshots are photoshopped, it's all a figment of some demented Euro's imagination!!
NURSE!! I need another pill, please!
Ahh, to hell with the pill. Screw all the astroturfers who spent all their time with wasted arguements.
Re:Stupid, short-sighted decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree with your comment.
And why can't they sort something out about the bigger problem, namely that it is near impossible to buy a computer without any OS installed at all; so you get to choose whatever OS you want.
Re:It's FAKE!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, there's a Deal. Tomorrow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will anyone else be surprised when Microsoft backs out on today's agreement when they take exception to some fuzzy detail?
This is a classic delay tactic. Meanwhile the EU is conditioned to accept their misbehavior thus paving the way for more abuse.
can't be a misunderstanding? that's never happened (Score:3, Insightful)
This sentence sent the hairs on the back of my neck on edge. How many times have we seen people, companies, legal systems make agreements with Microsoft only to find out that what Microsoft decided the meaning meant was completely different from what the other parties, and common sense, believed the agreement meant? The Novell / Microsoft agreement of recent which was made public the day after the signing of the agreement. Microsoft said it was about patents and Novell said it was about interoperability. To top if off, Novell people said that the patent stuff was thrown in at the 11th hour so you know this bait and switch was planned from the start at One Microsoft Way( FYI, that's the name of the street their headquarters are on ).
Good to see others are feeling the same way about this too. This does go to show yet again that legal systems are not going to protect the public from Microsoft's attack on small startup businesses, new ideas and... wait for it.... innovation. A decade of playing cat and mouse with Microsoft? Even SCO is still around so forget about the legal systems doing a thing to change Microsoft's way of doing business.
LoB
Re:It's FAKE!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Proprietary formats (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that how they plan to advance interoperability without hindrance?
Re:monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sellers are always directly accountable to purchasers and this is normal and beneficial to the operation of a competitive market. The problem with monopolies is they break that. Dell as a purchaser should have the power over MS. If M meets their needs Dell buys from them. If not, Dell buys from a competitor. Except in this case Dell has no other realistic options for the mainstream because of lock-in to Windows. As a result, regardless of if MS does what their customers want, the customers still buy from MS. All of this is legal, but it places MS in a position of power over Dell and other OEMs and when a company is in such a position of power the law forbids them from using it to make other markets less competitive.
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, then MS is using their power in the desktop OS market to force Dell to do something they would not do in a competitive market. At the same time, MS is hurting other companies that profit from producing web browsers. If MS convinces OEs they will have their prices raised higher than their competitors if they uninstall IE or install another browser, they're doing the same. If they continue both practices while at the same time intentionally breaking compatibility with other Web browsers, with the intent of making the Web itself reliant upon their browser, they are certainly illegally leveraging their position, and that is exactly what documents discovered by the courts showed MS's strategy to be.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:2, Insightful)
It also helps they hate everything American.
Well yes, yes of course they do. Because, well most of the world does, why shouldn't the we? /sarcasm
You gents over there seem to be getting a bit paranoid. I would say that a more rational explanation is that most European nations have a more sceptical view of large corporations, not sure why, but perhaps the thing about imperialism left a bitter taste. Well, and feudalism, and all the other quite nice forms of government you guys missed out on. In addition many of them have a strong social-democratic leaning, which tends to lead to laws and attitudes favouring citizens and "social" constructs, not companies and employers.
2 pretty worthless cents as I can't bother digging up references.
Re:"There can't be a misunderstanding" (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer is clearly Göring
Nah.. Uncle Fester. I bet if you put a light bulb in his mouth it would light up.
Re:Just use Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
"I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything."
Nice try. While the proceedings were in a civil court, that does NOT mean that they did not violate the law. They were found to have violated United States anti-trust law and a judgement, including penalties, was granted. While the specific penalties were vacated on appeal, the judgement stood.
MS was found to have broken the law. Hours of testimony and reams of evidence were presented to a judge, which is how he made his decision. His remedy was overturned, but not his decision.
MS violated the law - you can't win your argument simply because your opponent said "convicted" instead of "there was a judgement for the plaintiff in a case where MS was the defendant".
Re:monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
just because the PC market revolves around Windows does not mean that the dell, gateway and other companies have a right to use the power of the government to tell microsoft what they can or cant do with there OS.
No it means the government can tell Microsoft what they can and can't do with their OS. Microsoft is a corporation, remember? They're a legal entity that exists because the government dreamed up such a thing and even if they weren't the government has the power to pass laws that regulate interstate commerce. Remember we the people are in charge and our democracy created these laws to stop the robber barons and trusts that were causing great harm. So we wrote laws and everyone has to obey them because it is rule by law. IBM had to obey them or MS would not exist. Now MS has to obey them. The EU basically copied the laws already on the books in the US and the US already took MS to court for this same act which MS has not stopped doing.
...they don't tell apple[sic] that OS X cant include sarafi[sic].
No they don't because that particular law does not apply to Apples bundling of OS X and Safari. The government can only punish people who break the law. Weird huh?
...the point is you shouldn't punish sucess[sic].
No, you shouldn't, but the successful are also powerful and power comes with responsibility. We don't punish companies that successfully acquire a warehouse full of dynamite, but they are subject to additional regulations because of the danger represented by the power they have. Monopoly influence on a market is like economic dynamite. It can destroy innovation in a different market if misused.
there are way to many anti trust suits against any company that does well coming from the socialist EU.
How is the EU more socialist that the US? We pay more in taxes to fund government programs than citizens in many EU countries. As for too many antitrust suits, the US has taken MS to court on this exact same antitrust abuse, our courts were just more easily bribed when MS donated piles of money to re-election campaigns and then after the election all the people running the prosecution were replaced and MS was given no real punishment. You're saying the EU should ignore their laws when companies commit crimes? Or are you saying they should be like the US and just accept "lobbying funds" and make the whole thing go away?
both microsoft and intel should just pull there[sic] products out of the EU and then see what they do. then they would come and begging for there[sic] products once they relize[sic] the other crappy options avalible[sic] to them.
Umm, yeah. That would be about the stupidest thing any corporate executive ever did. Ballmer would be fired in hours and replaced. What, exactly, do you think governments do when you break the law while directly challenging their authority? The EU would confiscate all the funds and assets of those companies for further antitrust violations and probably confiscate all their copyrights and patents. Technically the US would even be bound to honor the transfer of intellectual property rights by the treaties we've signed. Even if we didn't you want to bet China and the rest of the world bound by the same treaties would not? Suddenly all MS and Intel patents and copyrights are public domain everywhere but the US, that includes the source code. Even if the US government was a complete puppet, we'd be screwed since it would just mean US companies have to pay while the rest of the world outcompetes us with lower costs.
Yeah, I don't think you've thought any of your ideas through.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you may be being a bit deliberately thick here. That's the whole point of the EU ruling. Opera complained that it couldn't get a toe hold in the market because with Microsoft's overwhelming dominance, there wasn't a level playing field.
Your attempt to provoke nationalist sentiments to rally Americans against the EU and their ruling against Microsoft is very transparent, and has been attempted on several other occasions here on Slashdot. It won't work. In the case of Microsoft, these actions, rather than being thinly-veiled protectionism, are an essential attempt to balance a market that has been in a stranglehold by the dominate player Microsoft for over a decade. The other complaints you have about the EU are irrelevant to this discussion.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
You probably missed the many cases where they've put three-digit-million fines on european companies. Let me guess, since those weren't american companies, they were never reported in american media. Understandable, but not very helpful in creating an unbiased picture.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had witnessed the past eight years from outside the US, you would be wondering how anyone in the world can possibly not hate everything american.
Heck, I witnessed the past eight years from inside the US, and am having a hard time not hating everything American.
Dan Aris
Re:Typical European Protectionism (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice try, but actually Norway is not part of the European Union (EU). In case you are wondering, Opera is situated in Oslo which is the capital of Norway. It's also not a really a big business (compared to many other companies here), I really sincerely doubt anyone would give a damn (except their users) if it weren't for the foul play.