Microsoft warns Europe of possible Vista delays

First the PS3, now this. Microsoft is warning that their oft delayed, Windows Vista operating system might be delayed even further in Europe due to "unclear antitrust guidance" from the European Commission. Apparently this all began in a letter from the commission to Steve Ballmer in March with concerns that some of the features in Vista would breach the same laws XP violated a few years back. According to Microsoft, they proposed some changes but never heard back, saying "Once we receive the commission's response, we will know whether the commission is seeking additional product design changes that would result in delay in Europe." Tit for tat, a spokesman for the commission's antitrust division said Microsoft's statement was "misleading to imply that the commission could be the cause of delays. It is not up to us to tell Microsoft what it has to do to Vista, the onus is on Microsoft to design its product in conformity with European competition laws, which it is well aware of." Meow! So is this just legal posturing by Microsoft in their never-ending European antirust battle or a bit of preemptive blame-shifting in case of further delay? We don't know. But hey, Europe, consider yourselves warned.

[Jon Riaso @ Sep 8th 2006 8:41AM]

"But hey, Europe, consider yourselves warned."

Consider ourselves warned? If your US multinationals would just repect the laws of the countrys in which they operate then this situation would not have arisen. The blame lies squarely with Microsoft. They knew the rules of the game before they played.

Unlike your DoJ, our commision does not fold so easily, and as such should be seen as a model as to how to defend the best intrest of its citizens.

[Sam @ Sep 8th 2006 8:47AM]

of course, Micro$oft could just use their muscle and completely withdraw all windows products from europe altogether. Then lets see what the EU commission wouyld have to say!

[Rick @ Sep 8th 2006 8:48AM]

It makes me laugh-- what's a giraffe? A horse made by committee. What's Windows? Horse crap made by committee.

[chuck @ Sep 8th 2006 8:52AM]

I blame the french.

[effzehn @ Sep 8th 2006 8:56AM]

Jon, I think you misunderstood the whole concept of this article. Or did I?

[z @ Sep 8th 2006 8:57AM]

We can only applause the commission for responding so fast and so clearly. Would they have waited a bit longer, Sony might have well blamed their PS3 problems on the EU too.

[fsx @ Sep 8th 2006 8:59AM]

"Unlike your DoJ, our commision does not fold so easily, and as such should be seen as a model as to how to defend the best intrest of its citizens."

Yes yes, but I would rather see them protect our interests in other areas such as product pricing. Am I the only one to find outraging that we pay 333 EUROS for something that costs 299 US DOLLARS in the USA (this is iPod's example, but the same applies to every other product you find in stores)?

[Intrepid @ Sep 8th 2006 9:05AM]

Europe and their stupid double standards. No media player in windows, but quicktime is ok on Mac? Come on... I think Europe just hates america (or is jealous), and I am not American or European.
I want the EU to prove to me how what they are doing to MS is fair. Why is it that they focus so much on Windows, when people are actually complaining about the 'lock-in' system of Apples iTunes/iPod.

[bob @ Sep 8th 2006 9:06AM]

Europe, consider yourselves warned.

id say 'blessed' myself

[Al @ Sep 8th 2006 9:08AM]

Not much of a threat. Corporates won't touch it for 12 months anyway and the average consumer won't care anyway. I imagine they'll just end up annoying their big sellers like Dell and help hand over some additional market share to the likes of Apple and the various Linux disties.

[Kevin Cannon @ Sep 8th 2006 9:20AM]

Intrepid - it's not about the US at all.

It's all about encouraging competition in the marketplace so targeting someone who achieved an illegal monopoly through certain practices. OSX hasn't an illegal monopoly so there's no reason to go against them.

[Intrepid @ Sep 8th 2006 9:25AM]

"illegal monopoly"

Please explain how having a product that sells better than your competitors products is illegal. Seriously. I want to know.

Microsoft have been working their arses off for years now, trying to do business the 'right' way - yet their competitors get away with doing the same things that they were/are punished for.

[TexRob @ Sep 8th 2006 9:26AM]

I for one am sick of reading anti-American posts in every freaking article. Stop making this US vs Europe, Europe vs US, xxx country vs xxx country posts. I did not elect Microsoft, I hate them as much as you, so get off of me and focus on your real enemies! This goes for Americans posting anti-Europe garbage where it has no place.

/rant off

[theChad @ Sep 8th 2006 9:37AM]

Just what does the EU want MS to do to windows? I don't see how including media player creates a monopoly, except that people don't see a need to get other players. They're not stoping anyone from installing other media players, web browsers, or any other program it comes bundled with.
Seriously, what does the EU want?

[Dukrous @ Sep 8th 2006 9:40AM]

Wait a sec...Microsoft asks the EU for clarification. And the EU replies says they don't tell how to design Vista, just to design it in compliance with their laws?

If the laws tell Microsoft how to design software, and the EU created the laws....isn't the EU telling Microsoft how to design their software? Doesn't this mean if Microsoft has a question, they should ask and receive a reply?

Sounds to me like Microsoft is playing fairly and the EU is whining.

[lp @ Sep 8th 2006 9:43AM]

Hang on a sec...

I'm in Europe & I never asked for Microsoft to not be able to release Vista.

I've been using the betas fine & would like to have them as they are (but less unstable, obv.) & if I don't want to have certain features I'll do as I always have done and install alternative (if/& better) 3rd party software

[Intrepid @ Sep 8th 2006 9:44AM]

"Sounds to me like Microsoft is playing fairly and the EU is whining."

Of course you can't fine a company when you helped them make the product in question - thus the EU is keeping its distance... lol. Stupid EU.

[mcepat @ Sep 8th 2006 9:50AM]

I don't blame Microsoft on this one, why would they deploy a new OS just to have Europe say it broke laws so they can gouge some more money from them

Please! Windows XPN ya that sold tons of copies

So why should they release VistaN when nobody will buy that one.

I know Apple is low on the radar buy "Hey Europe" go after them they bundle iphoto and itunes and its anticompetive because no european company can compete with apple because the bundle there software I say make them release OSXN

And while you are at it they have like 75% of the music players that can't play all the music formats, again this is crushing Europe competition.

[housetier @ Sep 8th 2006 10:13AM]

intrepid writes:
========================================
"illegal monopoly"

Please explain how having a product that sells better than your competitors products is illegal. Seriously. I want to know.

Microsoft have been working their arses off for years now, trying to do business the 'right' way - yet their competitors get away with doing the same things that they were/are punished for.
=========================================

1. monopolies per se are only legal with exceptions, usually the state has a monopoly (law enforcement, postal service)

2. When MS pays OEMs money so they equip their gear with MS products and not with products of other companies it is not called "selling something". There were (are?) cases where a PC with windows cost less than a PC with Linux; one wonders what happened to expensive license you usually have to pay for.

3. The term "monopoly" means "there is not enough competition". There are special rules for monopolists. These special rules do not apply to weak competitors-to-be to these monopolists, only to the monopolitistic (is that a word?) company. The EU as determined a) that MS has a monopoly in a certain market, and b) that they abused their monopoly to the damage of the customer. Therefore the EU c) set in place special rules MS has to follow "to make up for the damage".

It does not matter what *I* think about EU, what matters is wat the EU determines. It does not matter whether or not Vista is the holy grail of OSs or a pile of programmer's poo. The EU told them a couple of years ago that the same restrictions on Paintblaster XP would also apply to Hasta LaVista...

Yes you can see I don't think highly of MS and their products. It does not matter one bit though, because this is the EU making decisions.

Thank you for your attention.

[Ben Kessler @ Sep 8th 2006 10:54AM]

How are the Front Row/Safari/Quicktime, etc, etc "value added" apps in the Mac OS not exactly the same (if not arguably more embedded) than those that ship with Windows? If the EU and the US are going to cry foul over MS bundling, then they need to be consistent and do the same with Apple.

But they won't because Steve wears black turtlenecks, and the Franco/Italians LOVE black turtlenecks... maybe we should send one to Bill and see if it works?

[Fran�ois @ Sep 8th 2006 10:56AM]

In the end it all comes down to reduced sales for Microsoft, so I bet the delay won't last for long.

[lp @ Sep 8th 2006 11:05AM]

EU != the will of the public

Get it into your heads, ffs

[Fabian Bauhaus @ Sep 8th 2006 11:17AM]

Kessler, read housetier's post.

Apple does is nowhere near being a monopoly or even a real competitor to Microsoft in terms of operating systems.
Antitrust laws only affect the company accused of having and abusing a monopoly in a certain market.
Thus, there's no need to punish Apple.

[Jon Riaso @ Sep 8th 2006 11:19AM]

@Sam (3rd comment)

I think you meant to say "Then lets see what the MS shareholders would have to say". You are an idiot if you think that the Euro commission would back down if MS threatened to withdraw windows from Europe. Europe would go Linux so fast it would make your head spin. Plenty of jobs created here too, great for the local economies. Meanwhile Ballmer would be swinging from the end of a yard arm for f**king up so bad.

[jabbertrack @ Sep 8th 2006 11:35AM]

This is such bullshit

Biggest monopoly in history = DeBeers and they only had to pay 10 million in 2004 to the US for basically the right to price-fix.

The EUROPEAN UNION simply lets them walk all over them.

Oh but the EVIL American company MS gets slammed with everything the EU's got.

[ezekiel2517 @ Sep 8th 2006 11:40AM]

"Then lets see what the EU commission wouyld have to say!"

Ah ah ah... So EU would be responsible to use -at last- Apple OS or Linux systems,
and let those Windoze crappy worms, viruses & Co to Yankees....

I guess GWBush is Windows (Intel?) Inside.... :-D

[Ezekiel2517 @ Sep 8th 2006 11:40AM]

to Intrepid's "Why is it that they focus so much on Windows, when people are actually complaining about the 'lock-in' system of Apples iTunes/iPod.":

DO you know the worst piece of crap for an Apple user??? WMV files that slowly become impossible to read by any universal player (i.e. VLC) nor by QuickTime (except with the adding of a tiny (crappy) plugin).

Perhaps that this Intrepid, which is "not American nor European" should think more than once before adding a comment next time.

regards

[ezekiel2517 @ Sep 8th 2006 11:49AM]

ABOUT: "Europe sucks anyways. MS doesn't need them." Posted at 11:01AM on Sep 8th 2006 by George Bush

And I guess the whole world doesn't need George Bush. Bye Bye Big Boy

[chuck @ Sep 8th 2006 11:49AM]

Folks, remember that Europeans (except Brits) need a central organization to tell them what to do and how to operate, They have ALWAYS been willing to defer to "big brother" ie. Franco, Mussolini, Vichy, etc... Need i say more?

If the European Commission says that MS is bad then it must be true! It is easier than thinking for yourself.

[glacia00 @ Sep 8th 2006 11:58AM]

EU story: MS just doesn't want to make money in Europe.

MS story: We don't want to end up sued by the EU again.

Which sounds more rational?

[Kevin Cannon @ Sep 8th 2006 12:01PM]

Intrepid> Read up on Anti-trust laws.

I understand your confusion, I think if you figure out the motivation of these types of laws things will make more sense to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_laws

[jabbertrack @ Sep 8th 2006 12:15PM]

So nobody thinks it's odd that the EU sees the DeBeers monopoly as a perfectly legit business?

If you think the Operating System software market is bigger than the diamond business you would be sorely mistaken.

Apperantly it's just fine for a shady diamond company to take a perfectly commmon stone, use slave labor, murder people, and create a true monopoly then price-fix the stones and fool people into thinking they are rare while sitting on a huge stockpile.

But when a software company tries to get an edge with bundled software there's hell to pay in Europe.

[Jon Riaso @ Sep 8th 2006 12:21PM]

@glacia00

Shouldn't your post have been:

"EU story: Microsoft must not break the law. If they do then they will have to face the consequences.

MS story: waaaahhh boo-hoo the big bad commission doesn't want you to be able to use this cool software.

Which sounds more rational?"

[housetier @ Sep 8th 2006 12:36PM]

jabbertrack I think it's ok to murder people in order to increase market share. I also strongly supprt child labor in diamond mines (you don't need to dig such big tunnels for the little fuckers). I don't think you understand the concept of sarcasm, but you understand the concept of comparative morality.

Comparative morality is great. You can argue and weigh arguments to no end without ever coming to a conclusion.

OTOH I have to ake clear that monopoly does not equal child labor! I'll say it again because you are trying to confuse the issue with human rights here: just because a company is considered to have a monopoly in a market does not(!!!) mean it condones or uses child labor.

This EU vs. MS ligitation is not about being fair to anyone, much less being fair to everyone at the same time. Yes child labor is mad, murder is bad, wars are bad, monopolies are sometimes bad.

One problem will be tackled at a time. It is impossible to do everything at once. Or, to rub in the fairness term: trying to solve all the problems at once would take forever, and that would not be fair for everyone.

The short history of EU teaches us "yurruppee-ans" that the EU Commission is not such a bad institution after all. They are there for the .eu people and customer. If they think MS having a monopoly in a certain market is not good for the European customer, they take steps.

Other steps can include extra taxes on products from a certain country or manufacturer because said country/manufacturer does not meet certain minimum (moral) standards.

To avoid confusions, please mark that my the first paragraph of this post included sarcasm, cynism and various other forms of -isms and -asms and therefor should not be taken verbally.

Arguing politics AND economics is not easy. I dare say, just throwin a bunch of catch words into the discussion is dangerous because there are always more aspects to a story. It is very likely that one misses a vital aspect. It is also very likely *I* have missed a vital aspect of this whole ligitation. Do not let your sense of self-importance get in the way of finding arguments.

[Confidential @ Sep 8th 2006 12:36PM]

EU OFFICIAL STATEMENT - Our Logic

Lets make M$ strip their OS of everything, while Turtle-neck-boy keeps bundling more apps. Eventually Apple will overtake M$ (because people tend to gravitate towards the "better value" product (see bundling)), when that happens we will go after turtle boy and then allow M$ to bundle again etc.

Love EU.

[inlogic @ Sep 8th 2006 12:42PM]

@chuck "Folks, remember that Europeans (except Brits) need a central organization to tell them what to do and how to operate, They have ALWAYS been willing to defer to "big brother" ie. Franco, Mussolini, Vichy, etc... Need i say more?

If the European Commission says that MS is bad then it must be true! It is easier than thinking for yourself."

You sir, don't have have a clue about what you are talking about, and I suggest you that before you talk about Europeans and their 'Central Government'(rofl..) that you enlighten yourself about their institutions(how they work and who er.. 'controls' and how they are elected) and their people, wikipedia would be great place to start, until then, I kindly ask you to stop regurgitating nonsensical opinions based on some kind of 'urban' culture you may have.

[glacia00 @ Sep 8th 2006 12:44PM]

So Jon, what you're saying is essentially that there has been no communication at all between MS and the EU. Because that's the only way your viewpoint would make any sense at all.

There was never a letter from the commission to MS concerning features of the OS. And therefore MS never proposed any changes to the OS in response to the letter and are not waiting for a response from the commision beyond "follow laws we don't even have sorted out yet".

With the convolution that occured when the EU merged the conflicting laws of several countries I would be surprised if even the commision fully understands the current system since lawyers all over the world are trying to sort it out.

[asurroca @ Sep 8th 2006 12:44PM]

So, Europe's gonna get the PS3 late. And they're gonna get Vista late. Next thing you know, they'll be getting OSX 10.5 late "just because".

[Fran�ois @ Sep 8th 2006 12:51PM]

Now all you Americans slaming Europe, remember where your ancestors came from, Come to mama little US of A :)

[jabbertrack @ Sep 8th 2006 12:54PM]

housetier,

so if you take the obvious human rights issues out of the picture...

DeBeers is a the foremost example of a monopoly our planet currently has. Yet they are allowed to do business in the EU's territory without penalty.

So why the double standard for MS?

I'm in no way defending Microsoft's violations... I'm just playing devil's advocate because allowing DeBeers to sell diamonds in Europe would seem to be in CLEAR violation of the same laws.

[housetier @ Sep 8th 2006 1:08PM]

I am wondering: are there diamond mines somewhere on European territory?

Now if DeBeers has a word-wide monopoly on diomands, I don't see how a penalty tax could help lowering the prices of diamonds. If there is competition, is it real competition or have they built a cartell. If the diamond business is as dirty as I think it is (from your comments) then there is no competition. The only thing "we" can do is not buy there products.

I don't think anyting is obvious when it comes to politics and economics. Maybe the EU commission should go after DeBeers with all its might. But just because it does not when it should, doesnt mean it should not go after MS. You get a parking ticket even when there are murderers running around "uncaught" (does this word exist?). I help my friends rather then a homeless bum on the street.

[jabbertrack @ Sep 8th 2006 1:25PM]

Exactly, so then you have to examine WHY the EU is so fixated on MS over other more serious violations.

I think MS knows exactly why politically, and that is why they aren't so very keen on rushing to bend to the EU's will.

MS only wants to be absolutely sure they can't be sued again, and that may mean asking for clarification which is what they are doing. Seems to me the EU is being intentionally stubborn in hopes to set MS up to fail.

[jabbertrack @ Sep 8th 2006 1:31PM]

I'm not sure if there are diamond mines in Europe but that doesn't matter one bit, it's not the mines that are the monopoly, it's the fact that DeBeers ends up with all the diamonds before any consumers or retailers can buy them.

[housetier @ Sep 8th 2006 1:42PM]

I don't have to examine anything; but you have to since you think something's wrong. You have to point out the "wrongs" not I the "rights". I am not even agreeing on the fixation of the EU on MS.

What is your proposed solution to the problem of DeBeers monopoly? Is there a solution at all? With DeBeers being a planet-wide monopoly and all.

If there was a European diamond mine the EU could do something. If there is not, then it becomes more difficult.

Do you really believe MS does not have a monopoly? Do you really believe they have this alleged monopoly by right? I am not asking for proofs here yet.

*I* think MS has worked very hard to get to where they are now, and I believe they ought to receive the full fruit of their labor. If they have "misbehaved" they ought to receive that labor's fruit as well. However, it is not for me to decide/determine; that's exactly what we have the Commission for: to make such difficult decisions for us. Every people elects its representatives and gives them the task to make and carry out difficult decisions. This has nothing to do with "Obrigkeitsdenken".

[Sy @ Sep 8th 2006 1:43PM]

Sony delays PS3 for Europe.
Microsoft delays Vista for Europe.

Sony:1 Microsoft:1

Europe is the lost stepchild of the tech world.

[blabla @ Sep 8th 2006 1:49PM]

Concerning DeBeers: I think it is important to be aware of the fact that a monopoly itself is NOT illegal. I mean sometimes a company can't even avoid having a monopoly if you are the only one producing a certain product.

BUT: there are laws that make it illegal for you to abuse your monopoly. so the penalty microsoft are facing are not penalties for HAVING a monopoly, but for ABUSING it.

My theory would be that DeBeers simply did not abuse their monopoly. Probably they don't have to, because they have really no competition if I am correctly informed. Therefore: No abuse, no penalties.

To conclude: Dear Americans, get a grip on your paranoia.

[AlanJC @ Sep 8th 2006 2:03PM]

I spent 10 minutes composing something meaningful to post here, but the existing ignorance, and whole USA vs EU crap would mean it was either lost, misunderstood, or not even understood at all, by what appears to be a majority based on the number of muppets I see here.

Stop trying to turn this into a political argument between countries, it's simply a large corporate trying to break rules set against them.

[zorg @ Sep 8th 2006 2:48PM]

I totally agree with all the astroturfers for Microsoft who want to discuss diamond mines. Let's go further:

Make the police stop pursuing all the second-tier murderers until they catch the really bad one. It's outrageous that all this attention is being directed to a criminal who only killed one person when mass murderers are allowed to prance around like they own the place!

Well, okay, no, I don't really think that. I'm really in favor of prosecuting Microsoft AND DeBeers.

[Franssu @ Sep 8th 2006 3:09PM]

OMG EU 0wnz MSFT pwnz US sux LOL

[chenry @ Sep 8th 2006 3:58PM]

France surrenders