Microsoft contritely responds to EU decision

Sounding like a child who's just been caught with a hand in the proverbial cookie jar, Microsoft issued a decidedly contrite, non-confrontational response this afternoon to the decision handed down earlier today by a European Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance, thanking the court for its time and promising to take whatever steps are necessary to comply with the ruling. While playing up its commitment to Europe, aspirations for increased transparency, and continuing changes to its business practices, Redmond Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith also admitted that "we all have to acknowledge that there are some issues that do remain open" and even welcomed "continued discussion to adhere to our duties with the European Commission." Notably absent from Microsoft's response was any mention of an appeal, and while the topic does seem to have been broached in post-statement Q&A, the company's press release conveniently lists all questions as being asked "off mike" -- therefore, the only clue we have regarding future plans is Smith's assertion that "I don't want to talk about what will come next in terms of the legal process." In other words, it sounds like this case may well enter its second decade before a final decision is reached.

[Todd @ Sep 17th 2007 12:27PM]

TRANSLATION: "We are a bunch of unimaginative people who rely on FUD and lawyers to ram our out-of-date, overpriced products down the throats of consumers and business people alike. And while we have lost the means to do so in Europe; China, South America and Africa can all look forward to five figure desktop software licensing fees, endless security issues and good old fashion monopoly practices for decades to come...

...that is as long as no one uses Open Source.

[Jeff @ Sep 17th 2007 1:09PM]

Trolling for a highest rank.

Too bad you forgot this isn't Slashdot.

[andrews @ Sep 17th 2007 2:18PM]

I am constantly amazed that people will post comments like this. "Ramming down the ..." I mean come on! You can buy OS free PCs everywhere. Oh, and open source has yet to produce an OS that is suitable for the common user, and is usually VERY outdated in terms of drivers and anything peripheral. So I ask you, do you make up your "facts?"

[Todd @ Sep 17th 2007 2:26PM]

I would be glad to FAX you the $5,321.00 SQL Server and Windows Server seat license invoice I have ( Not paid and replaced with Open Source alternatives - btw ).

[OnimushaSoki @ Sep 17th 2007 3:26PM]

Microsoft> "Well fine! I'll just stop selling my products in Europe!"
Europe> "Bye." -slams door-


*fin.

[Roberto @ Sep 17th 2007 12:28PM]

M$ should exercise its right in the free market: pull out your product completely off Europe, until the ungrateful EU falls on their knees begging for MS Windows back.

[Alan Partridge @ Sep 17th 2007 12:31PM]

Trolling, trolling, trolling, RAWHIDE!

[Andir3.0 @ Sep 17th 2007 12:45PM]

Actually, I would love to see MS pull it's product. It would entice a great many developers to think about their next platform and how they plan on selling it. It's not like the world is going to end by MS not selling. People will still use what they have now, but they will have to start looking elsewhere. (And that's a good thing, IMHO.) People will definitely start looking at cross platform.

It would hurt Microsoft more than the EU.

[LJKelley @ Sep 17th 2007 1:35PM]

Well actually your wrong. If Microsoft so wishes it can terminate the License and ask you to return all copies of the software as stated in EULA.

So, yes they could say that in six months all Microsoft software must cease to be used in the EU and that WOULD cause pain to the EU.

But then I don't think that Microsoft would do that, they are not childish.

[Andir3.0 @ Sep 17th 2007 1:44PM]

If that is true... don't you think that that's the whole problem here? Seriously. Anyone with that much power over a region or the world should be seriously controlled or divided and forced to comply to standards set by a third party with no partisan.

If that is in the EULA, it should be evidence.

[MitchSchaft @ Sep 17th 2007 2:25PM]

I agree with Roberto.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Sep 17th 2007 7:18PM]

They can't. EU isn't US.

They have sold product to customers. Yes. Sold. Product. The crap about "licensing the program" doesn't work in Europe. Consequently, they are obliged to fulfill the support duties to their customers.

At least that's how consumer rights are in Germany. Here we can resell CD/DVD with OEM Windows freely. We paid money for it after all. So MSFT is obliged under law. It cannot quite market arbitrarily for pretty long time. (10 years in Germany: for decade they have to maintain all the related bureaucracy just in case something would pop up. Even if they are not selling their products here anymore.)

[osalom @ Sep 17th 2007 12:38PM]

Yeah!, MSFT should do just that, exercise its right in the free market: pull out your product completely off Europe.

Poor europeans, what will they do without MSFT superior technology. And I'm sure it won't hurt MSFT loosing a huge portion of their revenue giving the opportunity to other better Operating Systems to finally spread around the world.

Personally I would love to see MSFT doing just that!

[Roberto @ Sep 17th 2007 12:47PM]

Not superior like you say, but easy to use, and at the right price.

[osalom @ Sep 17th 2007 1:27PM]

Roberto, what I mean is that no matter how much MSFT likes or dislikes Antitrust Laws in EU, If they want to profit from that market they have to agree to and respect their laws. As you say, thay can exercise their right to exit any time they want but the truth is EU drafted their Antitrust Laws the way they did for a reason and people should respect and comply with such laws or leave.
It's as simple as that.

Personally I welcome fair competition that will lead inevitably to better products for all of us consumers.

Let me give you an example: Suppose I dont like windows products (doesn't matter the reason) but in my office we have a windows server and the only way to have acces to MY info and databases is through a windows server compliant OS.

Now, I did not choose where my info, calendars, contact lists, etc was stored. I don't like windows or I prefer another OS.

Then, why should I go and buy a windows PC against my preference? Moreover.. by buying ANOTHER windows PC against my preference I add another user to such platfform marketshare in an never ending cycle that evidently damages consumers that do not like MSFT products..

I think the nature of the EU antitrust laws is to stop that never ending cycle on behalf of consumers... what do you think?

[LJKelley @ Sep 17th 2007 1:41PM]

Then go use another Server like Unix or Linux or something. Nobody forces you to use Windows Server and Nobody forced the company you work for to choose it either.

You are pretending that Microsoft forced you to store your info on a Windows Server, when its more likely that the company you work for choose it. They also most likely force their users to use business laptops or desktops to access the information in a highly controlled enviroment. So yes they would go for a Windows/Windows enviroment. Other business use Redhat/Redhat or Suse Server with Suse Desktop. Sometimes oddly software from the same company seems to work better together. ODD. Very Odd.

You are free to choose what ever you wish at home.

[John @ Sep 17th 2007 1:57PM]

Unless Microsoft coerced your company into using their server software, it sounds like you would need to buy the OS (or, more likely, get your company to give one of the ones they bought in bulk) or find a new job. I honestly cannot imagine the acts of any computer or software company being truly regarded as grounds for an antitrust suit. There are simply too many options. Don't like Microsoft? You've got *nix and Mac OS. Don't like the media player or browser that came with your computer? Download a new one.

One of the great things that came out of the very thing that started the antitrust litigation in the US back in the 90s is that because Microsoft provided some bonus things with their OS for free, any competing product is free, and they're largely higher quality than the MS counterpart. I love IE, but only because it lets me download firefox when I get a new computer :D

[Nathan @ Sep 17th 2007 2:15PM]

Microsoft does act like a douche, a lot, but I really don't see the point of this anti-trust legislation. Microsoft's OS is not a public utility. Windows is not essential for life to continue to exist. If you base your life (or government) around a companies products you must be prepared to deal with the consequences of those actions.

Microsoft has every right to include or exclude anything they see fit. As long as Microsoft does not use force or coercion to reach its ends, no government has the right to step in and tell Microsoft what they can and cannot include in their software.

There is choice. I am a huge fan of Unix-like-OSs and FOSS. I actually think the model that FOSS is built upon is superior to closed source software in both philosophy and in execution.

My point is that Microsoft was every right to dictate how its software is used.

[montevale @ Sep 17th 2007 1:57PM]

Lawyers and Systems are in place and MSFT is not any different when they use the system. Everyone is pissed off that MSFT managed to use this formula the best way possible.
EU can see that MSFT is the only game in town when it comes to an easy to install softwawre that will run on the such a broad spread of hardware that is made almost by anyone.
However MSFT is too large to compete with in the OS by any other start ups. Yet I love bashing MSFT once in a while too... well there is no onle else there left to bash... actually wait!!! there is one company that is not any better - APPLE!!!
I don't see any openness from them eather. More over they bash MSFT even on TV with their funnny commercials (some of them are actually super funny). I don't see Jobs licensing his OS to anyone else and only see him locking it to his proprietary limited hardware. Interstingly though even after controlling every single component of his systems they are not much better then MSFT. Think about it they control every single component and yet they are not much better?
Hey Apple folks how about opening it up to the hardware around the world? Sell you OS as a license to run on not your only boxes? Then we can talk about competition to Microsoft.

[osalom @ Sep 17th 2007 1:58PM]

@LGKELLEY:

Evidently msft didn't force me to use anything.. It was it's dominant position in the market THE FACT that forced me to use (through the company I work) a windows server and then forced me to buy a windows pc, increasing windows market share in an anticompetitive form. There is no debate about that, even US Antitrust Laws "supposedly" consider that unfair market practices.

It is curious though that US corporations started all this Antitrust matters against MSFT in the EU.

And as I already said.. you don't like EU laws? please don't get hit with the door on your way out..

[John @ Sep 17th 2007 3:10PM]

I don't believe that US corporations started litigation against MS in the EU, but if they did, why would any other corporation have your best interests in mind any more than MS does? All companies want to be the dominant entity in their market, because that's where you make the most money, and the best way to do so is to topple the current leader.

Having a dominant position does not mean that you 'force' anyone to use your product. You can not be a monopoly in a market with at least one viable competitor. And I think there are hordes of people willing to say that Apple is a viable competitor, if not *nix. Standard Oil, or 'Ma Bell', two classic examples of monopolies, both locked out competition so you could either use their product, or nobody's. Microsoft, despite how much I'm sure it wish it could, cannot force its current competitors out of the market.

[osalom @ Sep 17th 2007 3:25PM]

@John:

Wikipedia: In 1993, Novell complained that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anticompetitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each unit sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system regardless of whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices.

Sun Microsystems joined the fray in 1998 when it complained about the lack of disclosure of the some of the interfaces to Windows NT. The case widened even more when the EU started to look into how streaming media technologies were integrated with Windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case

The main issue at stake now is not the media player, it is the integration to network interfaces that will allow other competitors offer better products and will also allow users real choices...

[Nico @ Sep 18th 2007 12:01AM]

osalom @ Sep 17th 2007 1:58PM

You really have to be kidding me right? cause last i check there was no gun
in your head that they forced you! Were you rape by the fact that you had to
use windows? c'mon don't be ignorant, so many speak of how cool other OS are
but fail to reconize that Windows is what's has moved the world market into
the Information Age. There were plenty of other OS before MS came into play
but neither mature and went about the route of competing as strong as MS did.
They play the game of the business and they won. Now I use linux from time to time
but Linux even with it's fancy berryl interface can't compete. At least not now,
now many speak of Vista not working. But it's not their fault that all hardware
manufacturer were lazy in developing compatible drivers for vista cause they get
no bottom line from it. Now They have formed a group to solve that problem but we'll have
to wait for Vista Service Pack. Anywho... Microsoft is not anti competetive, they are
a tough competition and that's what competition is about, Winning... now loosing and giving
away your technology so other may profit from it.

[osalom @ Sep 18th 2007 1:12AM]

Nico, you don't know what you are talking about do you?

You are too ignorant to differenciate between intellectual property rights and fair competition rules... nobody is asking MSFT to give away their IP rights for someone else to profit from them.. they are simply asking for interoperability in ordert to benefit consumers... Third parties will not be allowed to use MSFT code or technology.. UNDERSTOOD?

Before you continue to talk about things you know s**t about read this http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf
Then compare EU antitrus laws with US antitrust laws, you'll be amazed of how simmilar they are..

AND only then you will be able to give us all an educated opinion...

Anyway, antitrust laws have been in effect for a very long time now in the EU, so I don't undertand what all the whinning is about.. as I mentioned before.. If you don't like the laws of a country then don't do business there or get the hell out of it! Otherwise try to show some education and respect them...

[Nooneworthadamn @ Sep 17th 2007 2:22PM]

Parts of the reasonings behind the ruling doesn't make sense. First off as a user who doesn't know shit about a computer isn't going to know about media players, or internet browsers, or search indexers. They are going to want to pull their computer out of their box, and start it up and get going. They shouldn't be forced to rely on the manufacturer to supply media players, or browsers or anything else in order to use the software.

I love the concept of customizable operating systems whether it is OSX, Linux or Windows.

Windows doesn't stop people from installing alternatives to their software, I mean currently, there are a ton of media players people use, and it is the same with browsers.

The EU in some warped wisdom think that computer users benefit by not having a version of Windows without a media player? Come on. Media player doesn't stop you from using any other media player.

We have to think about who the general computer user is. It isn't an advanced user who is using some rev of the linux kernal with a certain window manager, followed up by this or that type of text editor, or chat client or torrent software.

People want a machine that you can turn on and use right away for getting music or a million other things they hear about on TV.

[Ian @ Sep 17th 2007 2:55PM]

Your mistake is trying to apply logic here.

The Eu's motivation has nothing to do with what makes sense. The fines against MS make up a not insignificant portion of the EU budget. They prop up their construct with fines against foreign companies while subsidizing their own lumbering dinosaurs like Airbus.

Their harping on consumer choice is, as we all know, baseless. The volumn of linux fans posting in celebration of this event proove their position wrong: their mere existance shows there is choice. The robust coverage of Apple products and the popularity they enjoy shows there is chioce in the marketplace. The fact that nobody purchased the media plyer free version of XP when it was offered shows that the EU is clueless about what users want from their computers.

In the end it is nothing more than a cash grab, just like the States that belly up to the class action feed trough here in the U.S.

Apple is next over their "monopoly" on media players.

[Jeremy @ Sep 17th 2007 3:03PM]

I agree. People want a computer that will just work. Taking out Windows Media Player means people have to figure out how to go onto Microsoft's website to download the program. It just doesn't make sense. I don't use WMP but I still have it on my computer because it came that way. It's not a problem that it's there. It's actually more of a convenience. Sometimes I don't want to wait for iTunes (my media player of choice) to convert a song to AAC. I just want to listen to it. I like WMP just for that. Or other times I'll want to listen to an internet radio station and I need to have WMP. Making a software company not put it's own software on a computer just doesn't make sense. It's like forcing Chevy to not install a CD/Tape/Radio in the car so you can/have to go out and buy your own. People want to get in the car and drive while listening to the radio. If it doesn't sound good then they'll go out and get another one. It should be the same with WMP. So what if it's there already. Some people won't mind. If someone does mind, they're probably smart enough to know how to replace it with another.

[James @ Sep 20th 2007 4:33PM]

The point is not so much that end-users will be directly better off in not having a media player installed, and to the average user it will add a small amount of hassle in having to download a media player.

But take a step back and see how this affects the market. If it is installed by default, the average user will not go to the trouble of looking around for new media player.

Firstly, this has gives windows media player an unfair advantage in the market, versus other software providers. If the user had to download one media player, then they might not choose windows media player, but by not having to download anything, they are far more likely to choose the choice that has been made for them.

Secondly, as windows media player is installed by default on windows, and can play proprietary file formats. Microsoft can use this fact to promote the use of such formats as being "compatible on all computers", the prevalence of such formats, over open formats, that are incompatible with other media players, aims to securing a lock-in via file-formats to windows media player.

If microsoft did not have a virtual monopoly on the OS market, these would not really be significant issues. But they have been using their huge market dominance in one area, the OS market, to ensure their huge market dominance in another area, media player software. They used a similar tactic with Internet Explorer (and as a web developer, I feel the pain of having to support that browser, solely due to its market share, every day).

Then in attempting to secure a product lock-in via proprietary data formats on the media player, which is tied to the windows platform, they are attempting to use the market dominance of windows media player to secure yet another lock-in on their operating system. Thus it goes rounds in circles.

[wolf @ Sep 17th 2007 2:54PM]

i used to enjoy seeing microsoft get slapped on these lawsuits... until the europeans started in. it's like, i can kick my little brother's ass from sun-up till sunrise, but when someone else kicks his ass, I don't know, it really gets under my skin. like what did that little prick ever do to you?

[Brandon @ Sep 17th 2007 2:55PM]

MS should just pull out and refuse to sell to the EU and be active in killing the resulting piracy.

Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.

[James @ Sep 17th 2007 9:59PM]

Shrug Bill, shrug!

[cat @ Sep 17th 2007 3:24PM]

People are forgetting the history:
1. when there was still OS choice: MS DOS, IBM DOS, Novell/CPM DOS, Msft made computer manufacturers pay them whether or not they used MS DOS. So computer manufacturers said, why should we include other OSes when we're already paying MSFT? Might as well just use MSFT. This allowed MSFT to reach its dominant position.
2. when Netscape was the dominant browser, MSFT made IE and gave it away to kill off Netscape, also paying off computer manufacturers w/ "incentives" if they don't put in Netscape.
3. now they're doing the same thing with Google search, media players like Quicktime, Real, Flash video; they're doing the same thing with servers like Apache, etc.

If MSFT really wanted to compete on the merits, they should just come out with a better media player, a better browser, let consumers download them if they want to use them. Look at Adobe Photoshoshop. It's number one because it's the best product out there, not because Adobe's stifling Open Source or other competitors.

[Nooneworthadamn @ Sep 17th 2007 3:44PM]

1. when there was still OS choice: MS DOS, IBM DOS, Novell/CPM DOS, Msft made computer manufacturers pay them whether or not they used MS DOS. So computer manufacturers said, why should we include other OSes when we're already paying MSFT?

--Thats because they were still licening BASIC.

2. when Netscape was the dominant browser, MSFT made IE and gave it away to kill off Netscape, also paying off computer manufacturers w/ "incentives" if they don't put in Netscape.

-- And they stopped doing that, but this whole argument is moot any way. Netscapes browser engine is still very popular today.

3. now they're doing the same thing with Google search, media players like Quicktime, Real, Flash video; they're doing the same thing with servers like Apache, etc.

-- Yes because a file system search shouldn't be part of your operating system? Its funny you bring up quicktime, real, and flash. Why don't you ask the linux community about how well flash is for them? Real Player was its own pain in the ass. You think media player sucks? You should have seen real player 4 years ago, not to mention quicktime and realplayer both had proprietary formats in there that people had to hack codecs together to read. The same thing with flash. New version of media players play wmv content natively unless there is DRM encoded, but media players on other pc's won't play it either. That isn't the fault of Microsoft though. Why does Microsoft have IIS? Because its an alternative to apache which didn't have a good windows front end for managing it. IIS has been getting better and better with every new version, since IIS 6.0 it has been a rock solid web server. Are you going to get pissed at microsoft for including a smtp daemon in their webserver as well?

What you don't seem to understand is that from a IT perspective it is a huge pain in the ass having to rely on a million different products that you have to mix together in order to get things to work right. IBM held the market place with workplace communications because of Notes and Domino, but guess what, it is a pain in the ass to administer and maintain and design for. With exchange, you have a much more simple management frontend, and any user can design exchange forms, something which is pretty difficult when it comes to notes databases. Linux doesn't really have a single package that can do what Notes and Exchange can do. Sure you can do it, but it will take multiple apps to do it.

You bring up flash and how microsoft is going after them, I assume you're talking about Silverlight, but guess what, developing in flash isn't that open either. You are using flash period. With Silverlight, you can use ruby, python, c sharp, javascript. Where is the HD encoding in flash? It can't display 720p videos. It doesn't allow different dev languages to code it.

Photoshop is number 1 because it is a good product, it has also been around for years, much longer than most if not all other graphic programs, but to think that Adobe isn't giving the shaft to open source devs, all I can say to that is HA.

[Ry @ Sep 17th 2007 4:09PM]

What gets me is no one mentions anti-trust when they talk about Apple (especially Apple) or any of the other companys who rig their software and hardware so it only works with their software any hardware thus you're forced to use their software.

[Kris S. @ Sep 17th 2007 3:34PM]

I for one, support our Microsoft overlords.

[Djunior80 @ Sep 17th 2007 4:28PM]

I second the bowing down to our Microsoft Overlords! The hell with the E.U - they want to take almost a billion dollars from Microsoft in fines...that is ridiculous!

[Jim @ Sep 17th 2007 5:22PM]

If I were Microsoft, I would just fax over a 3-letter memo to the EU: "Suck on it."

[anonymous @ Sep 17th 2007 5:32PM]

what, exactly, did Microsoft do wrong ... exactly?

(not that it should matter, but I use OS X, BSD, linux, etc. exclusively)

[superrrguy @ Sep 17th 2007 8:47PM]

I think Apple has more of a Monopoly than Microsoft.

What was the point of making a XP version without Media Player in the EU? The Europeans do know they can install iTunes or what ever else they want?

[Gonzalo @ Sep 17th 2007 9:24PM]

I heard today that Microshit got 95% of worlwide PC...it's that number reliable?
I know that MS got the majority , but not that much (maybe 85%,top, but i didn't expect that high)