I just saw this. I find it amusing. Not sure what to think of it to be honest. A part of me thinks "Make Microsft suffer!" another part of me thinks thewy might be getting victimised a little bit. In all business fields companies try to undermine/do better than their competitors.

Has any governing body in America ever fined Microsoft big cash for anti-competitive behaviour?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7266629.stm

Whoo! Go Neelie Kroes! I love that woman. Probably the most powerful dutchwoman in the world.
Not sure what to think of this, too. To be frank, I don't really care. And to be honest, I like to see "MacroSuffer"

Not sure what to think of it to be honest. A part of me thinks "Make Microsft suffer!" another part of me thinks thewy might be getting victimised a little bit. In all business fields companies try to undermine/do better than their competitors.


There might be a bit of victimisation at play here, but the fine was Microsoft's own fault. They were warned that they needed to change what they were doing and they failed to comply; it wouldn't be especially just to pay no attention to them ignoring an EU ruling. Surely if they disagreed with releasing code, they should have spoken up back when they were first warned, instead of simply waiting and hoping the problem wouldn't resurface? While I don't know much about laws on these matters, it seems a rather odd choice for them to make.

I will never understand this. Microsoft builds a product that captures the majority of the market. They design the product to make things difficult for their competitors. Why is this surprising? Since the competitors can't compete they sue and plead for government help. How this is justice I will never understand. It almost makes me wish that Microsoft could deactivate all of their software that is being used in the EU. It shouldn't be up to the courts and government to level the playing field. It should be up to the competitors to find a way to compete. Anybody every heard of Firefox?

Say what you want, but I TOTALLY agree M$ uses totally anti-competitive tactics. Remember when I tried to buy a laptop without a F'N XP license? Impossible, thanks to Bill's arrangement with retailers. I brought my Linux DVDs, and yet they still had to call M$ to check if I wasn't using pirated software. Hello, A-hole, Linux is SOFTWARE LIBRE - if you ever find a way to pirate Linux, I'd be damn excited to hear about it.

Back to my laptop. In the end, what were my options? Building it myself. I understand Dell ships some comps with Linux, but not just any Linux - the pathetic piece of crap called Ubuntu.

No one shouldn't get Bill's crap shoved down their throats.

Anybody every heard of Firefox?

F*** Firefox. Opera pwns Firefox anytime, anywhere, any place.

I will never understand this. Microsoft builds a product that captures the majority of the market. They design the product to make things difficult for their competitors. Why is this surprising? Since the competitors can't compete they sue and plead for government help. How this is justice I will never understand. It almost makes me wish that Microsoft could deactivate all of their software that is being used in the EU. It shouldn't be up to the courts and government to level the playing field. It should be up to the competitors to find a way to compete. Anybody every heard of Firefox?

Yeah, I understand what you mean. But decados makes a good point. If the EU Commision tell you to stop doing something, you do it. You might not think it fair, but you still do it, because you were told to by a governing body. It's not up to Microsoft to make the rules. That's why the fine is so big IMO. Fair, or not fair, anti-innovate or anti-competitive, it makes no matter. Them's the law Bill, do what you're told!

I think the issue is more about Microsoft actively preventing stuff from working on their software and making it difficult to make competitive components on their systems. Even the US has anti-trust laws for a reason, making a superiorly competitive product is all well and good but once that superiority reaches a monopoly there are plenty of ways of preventing competitors from entering the market, and at that point it's no more about your superior product but about manipulating the competition with your monoply-like position.

Also if I don't remember all incorrectly the USA also punished Microsoft for their misuse of market position some years ago.

@Disciple

Here is your opportunity to make millions. Start a laptop company that ships without an operating system (or with one you like). Dell had to start small also.

@Barmy

Yes, the U.S. also went after them. I didn't like it then either.

Also if I don't remember all incorrectly the USA also punished Microsoft for their misuse of market position some years ago.
They didn't. They went after them, won, then won the appeal that MS filed. MS was ordered to take WMP, IE and other components out of Windows and distribute them separately. MS did not such thing and was never troubled in the US again.

I remember when MS lost the appeal, I thought that even they were not above the law. Apparently I was wrong.

@Disciple

Here is your opportunity to make millions. Start a laptop company that ships without an operating system (or with one you like). Dell had to start small also.

It has already crossed my mind. Keep in mind M$ would 99.9% certainly sue my a** because my selling OS-less laptops would "encourage piracy" or some bull like that.

M$ would only sue you if they expected they could win the case - in which case the system you are expecting to level the field and punish M$ would in fact be protecting M$ from you, the competitor.

I agree with Snook, I'd love to see the day when Microsoft deactivates all the products in Europe (they probably even have that right, somebody needs to read the EULA).

That Microsoft actively prevents other companies from writing software for Windows might be the truth, it certainly is their right. What Kroes is doing now is forcing unfair conditions, she is biting the hand that is feeding the European IT industry.

If Microsoft were to remove all their products and support from Europe, the entire IT industry would crumble to the dust from which it was formed. There would be some GNU/Linux people here and there, but I guess that they would be fined for reasons such as "being so damned useful", "providing a complete set of tools on installation" and "being free" :rolleyes:.

My view of the points mentioned in the article:
- Including IE with their OS, are they kidding me? What kind of trouble do I have to go through in the future to get Firefox? Do I have to telnet to the mozilla server and type in commands to download it? Do I have to buy or order a separate CD with a free browser? Perhaps MS should include some self destructing mechanism: "you can only use this browser on the day of installation.. blah blah".
- Including Media Player with their OS. Boohoo, as if there are better audio players. I simply listen to music, do I need to download software for that?
- Forcing MS to release it's source so that other people can compete with MS, give me a break. MS should transport it's entire source code to binary, or at least x86 assembler, that should give those 'developers' a good reason to shut up.

I think Ayn Rand made a horror book when she published Atlas Shrugged. Well, if the EU keeps pushing these legislatures, we are in for some sick ride. I'm all for the Netherlands breaking every link to the EU, we pay so much money and all we get back are some policy makers who that the best way to fight inequality is thievery.


Hello, A-hole, Linux is SOFTWARE LIBRE - if you ever find a way to pirate Linux, I'd be damn excited to hear about it.

Burn it on a CD and sell it for money.

I agree with Snook, I'd love to see the day when Microsoft deactivates all the products in Europe (they probably even have that right, somebody needs to read the EULA).

The EULA I'm afraid is not above the law in most European countries. You can write whatever you will on the EULA but it has actually quite small legal signifigance in many European countries, atleast the one I live in.

Revealing its full source code is a bit rich I think, do they actually have to do that or is it just parts?

In any case breaking a monopoly is inherently good for the consumer and what's good for the consumer is what the government should be trying to pursue. I'm a bit surprised that monopolies that distort the competition that is the core of the libertarian agenda apparently fits into the view of so many libertarians.

When a company successfully manages to get a monopoly position on the markets, it might be very difficult for the competition to crack that monopoly because it will either buy or sell momentarily for non-profit in order to keep competion out. I doubt that even a hard core libertarian economist like Milton Friedman would be very happy about monopolies.

There is a reason why anti-trust laws exsist and the main reason is that monopolies are so utterly difficult to crack by market forces once they are formed.

Hmmm, I do have issues with MS behavior in the past, even I think that requiring them to release source code is a bit much. MS produces proprietary software, not open source.

Burn it on a CD and sell it for money.

Which is what a lot of people do. Red Hat Linux, anyone?

Anyway, in this case Microsoft has laid its own nest. It was warned back in 2004, and told to release information about their OS that would make other developers able to develop compatible products, as well as limit the use of integrated materials such as WMP or IE. It's been 3.5 years (after a 5-year trial); they had time enough to act.

Morgoth, them deactivating their products in Europe I don't see happening. It's going to cause a hell of a mess, but considering how much money they won from simply public orders for their software I don't see them wanting to lose it - or allow the chance that a rival could claim some of it, unlikely as that is.

The bottom line, imo, is that we have anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations for a reason, and that ignoring the law can be a bad policy even for someone like Microsoft.

and told to release information about their OS that would make other developers able to develop compatible products


Uh, how was MS preventing other companies from developing compatible products?

From my reading of it, I don't think it was a case that others couldn't develop products. It was that they couldn't develop products as well as Microsoft. As MS were the only people with the source code this meant that they could automatically develop products that worked a lot better with Windows than anybody else could, hence MS had an immediate head start in developing any piece of software (given that almost every computer will use Windows). This means that if anybody comes up with a new or improved piece of software, MS will quickly be able to trump it, thus ensuring that they win the market for the new piece of software to themselves.

I don't think they're required to tell everybody their source code, as in allowing other operating systems developers to copy it wholesale. What they're being asked to reveal is enough information on it to allow developers of applications to make software that links with Windows almost as well as MS's own products, giving them a level playing field. To be fair to MS there's a thin line between the two and it's hard to imagine that they won't be forced to give some trade secrets away.

While hardly the most practical of sciences, in economics a monopoly is nearly always held to be bad for consumers in general circumstances (higher prices for less products). The big problem that the EU is trying to solve is not that MS has a monopoly on operating systems but that it is using that to create a monopoly in many of the other applications that are being invented for computers. An important objective of giving away stuff like Internet Explorer for free is that it stops smaller firms starting out in one area from growing larger and then starting to branch out into other fields. If a company such as Netscape had managed to make money, grow big and establish their reputation in web browsers then there was a danger that they could have started to make word processers, spreadsheets etc. That could have hit MS's cash cows hard. Just look at the bundling of them. Most people will have the MS Office suite. Do all casual users really need each of Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Access? Word probably, but the others?

As MS were the only people with the source code this meant that they could automatically develop products that worked a lot better with Windows than anybody else could, hence MS had an immediate head start in developing any piece of software (given that almost every computer will use Windows). This means that if anybody comes up with a new or improved piece of software, MS will quickly be able to trump it, thus ensuring that they win the market for the new piece of software to themselves.Thus the risk of bundling. Yes, the user can choose and install something else, but I know many customers who simply lack the interest, knowledge or energy to do so. It is inconvenient, too. At times it's quite a pain to purge certain MS products from your MS OSed comp. MS is counting on this. With bundling media players and browsers they, with their market weight, could simply push contenders out of the market. This is what the EU accused them of doing. That the EU market watchers didn't like, because they think competition is good for the customer and for progress in technology and software - even if competition has to be imposed against a monopolist. Think of the EU fine as a case of punitive damages as in the US. The high damage was because MS kept up their practice of bundling for the duration of the lawsuit. Had they complied earlier, they'd have to pay less. Also, it is helpful to not forget that the fine has a basis in EU law and isn't a product of the baleful whim of a .... French, US hating regulateur (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/1b/300px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg) :rolleyes:

As for MS deactivating their products here, get real. The EULA gives me a right to use their product that cannot be unilaterally revoked. Also, I'd be among the first to sue them in the US for damages and punitive damages for violating - thanks to a silly provision in US law that allows lawyers to work pro-bono and that allows them a quota-litis :evil:

What you see here is that just like US law oozes out through MS imposing their US law EULA on the European customer, that US competitors push back by imposing EU law on MS by suing them in Europe - this is jurisdiction and regulation shopping, and nothing new. It happens in the US to EU companies all the time. US law prevents you, a global player, from fighting your global rival - try EU law, or the other way around. That means that rather sooner than later the US need to enter an agreement with the EU on this, even though they have been in the past quite inflexible (as in: U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!) on this (horrors, international law!). This is globalisation; you better don't try sit it out.

As for MS deactivating their products here, get real.

Considering that they're unable to deactivate just pirated products I doubt they'd be able to deactivate products for an entire continent. Even China where most windows products are probably pirated keeps using them, not much Microsoft could do anyhow. They could of course stop selling their products in Europe in which case they'll take the hit and we'll take their products free. ;)

Also if I don't remember all incorrectly the USA also punished Microsoft for their misuse of market position some years ago.

There was talk about chunking it up...

@Disciple

Here is your opportunity to make millions. Start a laptop company that ships without an operating system (or with one you like). Dell had to start small also.

I've seen many laptops with Linux here and some without a system at all, but that's been in the low price range. Still, some have been quite powerful for a laptop.

As for bundling:

Windows costs X, Office costs Y. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and some other things are for free. What does this mean? It means Windows, Office and other paid software pays for Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. It's theoretically for free, but practically you get to pay for the bundle. You can always choose to use something else - free or paid, but you've paid for the bundle already. Also, with a costly version of Windows, you're too spent to buy anything third-party if you already have something in your system. Something you didn't choose to have.

By the way, noticed the difference between OEM and non-OEM prices?

I've seen many laptops with Linux here and some without a system at all, but that's been in the low price range. Still, some have been quite powerful for a laptop.

I got Debian with X and Fluxbox running on 512MB no problems. Same thing FreeBSD with X and KDE.

Vista is heavy, bloated trash. Technically, I *could* run Vista on my box (forced to suffer a dual-boot because of gaming, remember?), but why in my right mind would I want to?

And an interesting tidbit of news I read on linux.org earlier today:

IBM is teaming up with partners in Austria and Poland to offer Microsoft-free PCs for the eastern European market.

IBM says it is offering the Linux-based PCs together with Red Hat software distributor VDEL of Austria and Polish distributor and services firm LX Polska, in response to demand from Russian IT chiefs.

Chev, you will have the option of buying a M$-free box. While I don't like Red Hat, I envy you in the way you CAN break free of M$ when buying a box.

Aren't there small businesses that offer to assemble PCs for you? Most computers I see sold here are not sold by the big players, and usually you can choose what OS you want. Pirated MS Windows - and/or Office - is sometimes an option, and not an altogether unpopular one.