Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Microsoft News Your Rights Online

Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out 402

Posted by timothy 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out More

Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out

Comments Filter:

  • Serves 'em right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dosius ( 230542 )
    They got where they are through greed and deceit, they deserve to have no mercy given to them. Serves 'em right.

    FP?

    Moll.

    • Re:Serves 'em right (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheLogster ( 617383 )
      Actaully - I have always found the MS windows media player to be far better that the QuickTime Player, and the virus that is know as RealPlayer. But, hey, that is my opinion.
      • I'm with you. Normally I'd bitch about the "phone home" features in WMP, but Quacktime and Reel will be doing that shortly. All 3 are spyware, in effect.

        What I AM happy about is the potential that MS will actually have to document their undocumented APIs. That's the real deal maker to me.

      • Re:Serves 'em right (Score:2, Informative)

        by flithm ( 756019 )
        Yeah, but mplayer is far superior to windows media player.

        Often times some of my windows using friends will complain about download some crappy movie off of a p2p network and how the audio wasn't synched properly.

        I'm always like... "don't you just use auto-sync? Or just hit the buttons that allow you to positive or negative delay the audio manually?"

        And they're like, "Man what player do you use? That sounds awesome!"

        And when I tell them they just say "Hmmpf, never heard of it."

        Oh, and there's also VL
    • Yeah, this is a great ruling. Now if we can just get someone to sue Redhat for packaging up2date with Linux and preventing other package managers such as yum and apt-get from becoming widely used. And someone should sue Gentoo over Portage for the same reason. Oh wait, that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

      I find the entire issue of Microsoft packaging Media Player with Windows to be utterly ridiculous. It's their product. If they want to make it only work with other products of theirs, that's their

      • Re:Serves 'em right (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Gaining an edge by making yourself better is good. Gaining an edge by using your dominance to shut others out of the marketplace is bad. If Microsoft was just another software company, then yes, it would be fine to bundle their software. They're not. They're a monopoly. The rules are different for monopolies.

      • It's not the packaging, it's the bundling. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by biendamon ( 723952 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @11:16AM (#11158480)
        If you could uninstall all of WMP, there wouldn't be a problem. It would be a simple matter for Microsoft to make WMP an optional component; it certainly was in the past.

        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.

      • Re:Serves 'em right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @11:20AM (#11158521) Journal
        RedHat is not a monopoly.
        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.
      • Now if we can just get someone to sue Redhat for packaging up2date with Linux and preventing other package managers such as yum and apt-get from becoming widely used.

        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

  • Choke on it (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:50AM (#11157715)
    MS was unable to comment because of their shock that they were unable to buy a court.
    • When Microsoft does comment, I bet Steve Ballmer will say, "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience. We are committed to moving forward as a responsible leader in an industry that is constantly, constantly changing."

      And I bet Bill Gates will say, "This settlement puts new responsibilities on Microsoft, and we accept them," and also that he is "personally committed to full compliance."

      Well, that's what happened at the end of the Anti-Trust case.

  • Precedent.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DenDave ( 700621 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:53AM (#11157735)
    This is a very interesting precedent and it will be intersting to see what the reaction from the industry will be.

    http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=18401556 [informationweek.com]

    has some of the better comments from the bigwigs at Redmond..

    My favourite being:
    This is a case that started in the United States. Microsoft is an American company.


    Sorry but then perhaps you should keep your company in America ...

    • Re:Precedent.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 )
      "Sorry but then perhaps you should keep your company in America ..."

      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?
    • Following precedents is rather like walking backwards. i would rather there have been a mandate that audio and video codecs be open.

      However, the remedies being upheld is a good thing. This may put a bigger wrench in M$ plans by not only preventing the desktop audio / video market from closing up, but also HDTV and DVDs. M$ has had its eye on all three and the desktop monopoly could have done much more harm if HDTV over IP were to become available only via WMP.

      Let's hope this support of the March deci

      • Re:Mandate, not precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:09AM (#11157868) Homepage
        "Following precedents is rather like walking backwards. i would rather there have been a mandate that audio and video codecs be open."

        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

        • Actually.. i think that MS only has a future if it can get out of the os business... if they would focus on providing productivity software they might survive. If they cling to the OS market they will inevitably be surpassed by the next best thing... it's a hog cycle really, and the hog is now Linux.
          • I don't seeing that happen any time soon [sadly]. There are still quite a bit of "win32" only users out there that like inferior computing environments.

            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
        • What microsoft has to realize is that if they didn't market 95/98 so poorly and peddle these half baked programs and simply focus on a solid core OS.... they would be better off.

          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)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:53AM (#11157740)


    Surely a media player is an integral part of the operating system, just like a web browser, some card games, and a paper clip.

    • They NEED the paperclip, it holds the whole OS together!

  • you mean (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:54AM (#11157747)
    people actually find Windows Media Player a threat?

    i would be more concerned about the integration of IE into windows but then again that is just my opinion
    • From the perspective of a person who uses a windows based computer at work, I am worried if windows media player is removed.
      The music player is one piece of software that most businesses do not consider a necessity, and if one is not installed chances are they will not install an alternative.
      However I don't think this portion will have much effect. Microsoft will say it does not cost that much to include it and point to other free players as an indication of cost. So you will have a choice of windows wi
    • Just look at the number of .wmx files on the P2P networks...

      But this isn't just about the situation now; it's about the future. By the time IE had started to pull away from Netscape and we could see just what damage a bundled browser could do, it was too late to fix things. Similarly, by the time WMP looks like a serious danger, it'll be too late. I think the EU is right in acting now.

    • Re:you mean (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arkhan_jg ( 618674 )
      The threat is the codecs.

      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
  • I just can't think of a penalty that could cause Microsoft "serious and irreparable damage"... Help me out here, folks!

  • The question is... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Majin Bubu ( 455010 )
    ...Does anybody (and I mean in the large market of "normal" users) really want a Windows without Media Player? Does anybody care?
    Of course, what might matter is that the judgements of the Court creates a precedent, but here in Europe, laws are different, and precedents don't carry as much weight as in the US.

    • Re:The question is... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chris_Jefferson ( 581445 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:08AM (#11157854) Homepage
      If people want windows with a media player thats fine. They can pay the probably very small (I'd imagine about £2) that a "with media player" copy of windows will be. Or downloaded it from Microsoft's website.

      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

      • Re:The question is... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:43AM (#11158145) Homepage Journal
        Pack-ins have never meant monopolies.

        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.
      • ``Those are the rules you have to play by once you are in a monopoly position''

        However, Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are active and serious competitors. People may ignore them, but that doesn't change the facts.
    • "...Does anybody (and I mean in the large market of "normal" users) really want a Windows without Media Player? Does anybody care?"

      The large market of 'normal' users just wants to click on the icon and see the video or hear the song play. Whether it is via WMP or some other tool is of little consequence.

  • MS to make MediaPlayer free version of windows (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:56AM (#11157758)
    Link [reuters.co.uk].

  • Enough is Enough... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:56AM (#11157763) Homepage Journal
    The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.

    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)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:19AM (#11157958)
      The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.

      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.

      • I've not been served any injustice (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:35AM (#11158063) Homepage Journal
        You see, it hasn't hurt me.

        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?
        • By including WMP with Windows, many users won't bother to install anything else. This means that other companies are at a heavy disadvantage to Microsoft, even if the player is as good or better than Media Player, and even if their player is free, it is still at a disadvantage.

          Using your monopoly as a tool to gain another monopoly is illegal.
          • I know people who don't know squat about PC's but they still install Quicktime and Realplayer and WinDVD and powerDVD and whatever else they get.

            If anything Apple should be shot for there proprietary iTunes system, quicktime plugin and such. Atleast with WMP you can configure it to work with seevral different stores, all different formats (with the purchase of 3rd party codecs such as divx, dvd and even open source codecs)..

            Hell, when you buy a PC the vendor can install whatever he/she wants. You have a
            • Would you like to take a guess at the number of non tech-savvy people I know that don't use WMP?

              From my experience, the majority of people don't even consider not using what came with the OS.

        • "You see, it hasn't hurt me."

          How many software solutions and technologies were destroyed or bought out and mutated beyond usefulness by MS? How many "killer apps" and technologies withered on the vine after MS moved to crush them?

          You can't claim that it hasn't hurt you, because you have no idea what you are missing today because of their actions.

          • Killer apps exist.

            iTunes, Rhapsody/Listen.com, Winamp, DiVX, PowerDVD, and even open source stuff such as dScaler have been superb at easily integrating and utilizing the OS.

            Infact for ANY operating system out there i'd say as far as the OS goes and creating the tools necessary to harness the power Windows still wins hands down - its just that easy, and the market that huge that people can take the risks and make the investments to build that killer app.

            Games are a fine example - They supprot DirectX and
            • "I can claim it didn't hurt me because it didn't."

              Pointing out that some killer app exist completely ignores the point of how many were crushed outright that you will never know you missed.

              That's like saying increasing extinctions are irrelevant because "look at all the critters around here".

              Assume MS had NOT used its monopoly to crush Netscape. How many countless hours of reinstalls, stolen data, stolen bandwidth (when your machine is now a spambot), etc. could have been avoided if more than half t

        • "I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris."

          The average American (or European) consumer is completely unaware of what OS/2, Linux or Solaris are. The very fact that you've even heard of these and have even gone as far as to try them out excludes you from the average consumer pool. The average consumer is only aware of MS, and if MS is allowed to proceeed in it's tactics, will only be aware of Windows Media Player for playing mp3's/video files, and only IE fo

  • 120 days (Score:4, Interesting)

    by protoshoggoth ( 588994 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @09:57AM (#11157768)
    "Microsoft has 120 days to comply with an EU sanction compelling it to disclose Windows code that will make it easier for server manufacturers to work with Windows."

    Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)

  • Is this decision as big as it seems. Either investors (a notoriously jumpy sort) have a good reason to believe the stock will continue to rise or the news isn't as big as one would have thought.
  • With this and the stay of execution on software patents, anyone buying me pressies will have a tough act to follow :)

  • Raising the bar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:14AM (#11157917) Homepage
    MS has lots of components that they have started including over the years. From SUS, to MOM, and Media Player to solitare. Those applications, IMO, have the effect of raising the bar for other vendors. Those MS apps are just "adequate". They aren't particularly feature rich, flexible or tied into value-added services.

    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]

  • Integrating Media Player? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Integrating media player into windows is an illegal extension of monopoly? Are they kidding?

    Is including notepad illegal too? Doesn't that make it more difficult for makers of text editors to compete?

    For that matter, isn't bundling the interface with device drivers illegal too?

    Here's a thought:

    If the software is a player or viewer, i.e. does not let you create content, then it should be bundled into the operating system because its inefficient to make customers chase are around after it.

    If the softwa
    • That WMP is an application framework completely with an SDK and extentions while Notepad is not. You can build products for WMP that are tightly integrated while Notepad you will have to rely on loosely tied interfaces to drive it.

      At its core, Notepad is a tool meant to stand alone while WMP is an application that was meant to be extended. Is it Microsoft that is trying to muddy the waters? If Microsoft is allowed to claim anything they make is a tool for Windows and necessary for the OS then, ironicall

  • Microsoft's "fix" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:35AM (#11158060) Journal
    MS will be releasing two versions of Windows from now on, both priced the same, but one will have media player and one won't. Shocking to anyone?

  • Making things competative (Score:5, Insightful)

    by canuck57 ( 662392 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:35AM (#11158061)

    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

  • Does this mean that Linux vendors will no longer be able to ship a pre-installed media player? What about Apple Quick Time? Will it have to be removed from OS X?

    Or does the "level playing field" only apply to Microsoft?

  • How about the bootloader? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FullCircle ( 643323 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @10:57AM (#11158291)
    Why do courts always ignore the bootloader issue?

    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)

    by Smilin ( 840286 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @11:11AM (#11158429)
    How hard is it to write a media player that outshines WMP? It's not that difficult at all. In fact it's been done already several times. The problem with all of them is that while they gripe about Microsoft's "greed" they get greedy themselves and resort to tactics that the user finds distasteful.

    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.
    • You're an engineer, right ? :D

      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)

    by thoolihan ( 611712 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @11:20AM (#11158534) Homepage
    To everyone saying this is ridiculous. Yes it is, but most gov't interference with business is. MS has taken advantage of all kinds of patent, dmca, and copyright law. They lobby governments all of the time, and in some cases us tax dollars pay to support MS sales over-seas. Now this it-political game they support has bitten them. And I'm expected to sympathize? -t

  • Help me understand... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greymond ( 539980 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @12:34PM (#11159423) Homepage Journal
    "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."

    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.
    • In capitalistic societies monopolies are treated differently since the market has no longer power or its power is sorely diminished to deal with a rampant monopolist.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Close