Microsoft concedes, complies with EU antitrust ruling
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Oct 22nd 2007 7:50AM
posted Oct 22nd 2007 7:50AM
- Rival software developers (including open-source) can now access and use Microsoft interoperability information
- Royalties for this information will be reduced to a one-off payment of €10,000 / $14,000
- Royalties for a world-wide license to use Microsoft's product and patents will be reduced from 5.95% to just 0.4%
Excellent. Now the playing field will be substantially more level then before.
If you cant beat them, then get a euro-trash court to jerryrig things so your supposedly superior alternative can "compete".
Whoa, dems fightin' words.
does anyone know if this compels microsoft to make available the information about how exchange and outlook connect to each other? it certainly would help the linux community to be able to develop a client which can speak directly to exchange instead of scraping an outlook web access page...
It's just business, Microsoft has to pay for it because the governments in the world don't understand business. Free Enterprise!
I have to wonder... Did your relatives work in the Carnegie Steel plants and live in "company housing" back in the great industrial years of America? Yeah, free enterprise is always looking out for the good of the people. In order to make profits better, they decided to offer employees cheap housing for lower wages and if the employee left the company, they were kicked out of their home.
Is this the type of free enterprise your talking about? Companies dictating the rules so they can make an extra buck?
Why not let Microsoft continue on it's path to controlling all of your operating system needs? When they release a new version of Windows every year and force you to upgrade it by shutting off the old version, we'll see who really wants free enterprise. I mean, Microsoft still has to make money. If they can't charge people every year, how are they supposed to stay open?
Oh, a competitor is supposed to come in and make a better product? Sure, no problem. Let them try to create an entire system of Servers, Workstations, Software, and hardware (XBox) that does everything Microsoft has control of when they finally take over. Oh, and by the way, those documents you created on Windows won't work with this new system because they are not allowed to break patent laws. Try to be the start up company on that end of the stick. "Oh, sorry, our servers only communicate with Microsoft operating systems. You're going to have to get your supplies elsewhere."
Of course we always have to jump the the most extreme measures to prove a point, I think any logical being knows that those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation. This is simply punishing someone for their success, if such things were in fact going on, such as shutting down the old operating systems when the new ones came out we would be speaking of an entirely different thing all together.
"those scenarios are far more likely to come from the government than a cooperation."
Carnegie Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, Enron and (who was the IPod manufacturer with "slave" labor) were/are not government bodies.
Also, look up "oil-for-food scam". If you get ambitious, you can find many instances of this type of thing going on.
These are businesses that were considered successful because they manipulated the people that work for them and bent the rules. I include Microsoft in those companies because they used unfair licensing schemes with OEMs in a time when software was new. They purchased and closed many companies along the way to claiming domination in the PC industry. There were no regulations and Microsoft milked it for every penny. Without regulations, companies will back stab and cheat to be successful. It's a historical fact. Without control of your "successful" business, they will grow into what I described. You expect the governments to shut them down _after_ that happens instead of _before_? You'd trust a company like that?
Every company is like that they try to get a head, you cannot compare business of old with business of new. Look at it objectively, Microsoft's OEM licenses forced companies to pay per computer/processor for the OS, even if it wasn't installed on the computer. Ignoring the fact that is a standard software OS practice (IE Unix servers etc.) that is the deal the Microsoft setup for a special license price for their software, the companies could have dumped the software and they could have went with something else, especially in the beginning. And of course the companies complained, just like MS complained they were getting the licenses too cheap. A good business deal is usually one that leaves both parties unhappy. The OEM's got the OS for the price they wanted and MS charged them for OS they didn't sell everyone wins, everyone looses, and computers get cheaper for us.
I'm sorry, Eric, but your last post in this thread is just stupid and ignorant. I hate being rude, but Microsoft's practice of forcing OEMs to pay a Windows licence fee for every system they ship is just grossly unfair behavior which takes advantage of their monopolistic position. The reason that legislators/governments need to act on this is that it stops the market from working properly. If you can't see/understand that then you need to get an education. It's as simple as that.
Free markets and competition are all very well when they work as designed. But it takes continual oversight to ensure that distortions of the market don't take over, often because of an overly dominant position of one player - like Microsoft's prevention of competition wherever they have been able. This is not "interference with the market" as so many right wing simpletons think, but necessary action to make sure that the market works as designed.
No, its because Microsoft breaks the law it has to pay. Just like it did in the USA, only the politicians over in the US at the time were on the payroll of MS so they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them so they voted against breaking up the company. They have election campaigns to win you know.
MS has a long criminal record. Lets not forget that.
Nick who forced them to sell Microsoft products to begin with. Check around may software companies use that licensing format. It's not uncommon. Its ok that you don't understand this, we will have to agree to disagree, I just wish some people could get past the view point that Microsoft is the villain, every company is just as evil. If the OEM could they would charge you for every hour you use your computer.
Free enterprise still has basic game rules, you can't do without them, not even if you are an republican american Ayn Rand aficionado.
And america also has these rules, and applies them, they just have people in power that collect grease to apply them a little less for some selected people.
eric, you are a moron that knows nothing about business, this is to promote competition and benefit the consumer, not unfairly stifle competition as microsoft has been trying to do. this is the main reason this case has been brought to court, succesfully won and they have lost the appeal. so before you post such stupid comments, take a wider view and also understand this has been through a number of reviews all of which found against microsoft
Having been the victim of government shakedowns in the past, this is a shakedown. Stop kidding yourself.
I can see the Microsoft alarms are going off and the comment patrol is out.
Windows is no longer the only choice. If you hate Windows so much, do what I did.... Get a Mac.
A mac? that's a bit extreme isn't it :o
good stuff, good stuff.
Nice to see software stand up for themselves, and good things coming out of it.
Marklar, you are a rude git that obviously doesn't understand socialist goverments and the real world. This is all about punishing success and an American company.
There is a reason the Euro economies are stagnant and can't produce their own counterpart to MS. So making it a more 'level playing field' really means knocking MS down a few pegs.
Before haranging on someone else, you might check that you're not talking out of your own behind.
It's courts, not governments who have decided against Microsoft for anti-competitive practises.
Anti-competitive is actually pro-socialism. You can't have a controlled socialist system with a free, competative market... or did you miss that at economics lessons?
Also, the EU is not a government or a country. It's a loose trading organisation.
If you understand nothing about European government or judiciary then probably better not to mouth off about it.
Wrong. This is about leveling the play field, nothing more. Think about it like this. In simplified terms, it's like asking the power company to release information on how much voltage is going through the power lines so other companies can create meters and wall outlets instead of buying them form the electric company. (In simple terms) Sure, you could measure the voltage, but according to your electric company usage policy, you are not allowed to reverse engineer the wires coming into your home to find out how they work. Now, if you do this, you only have to pay them a marginal fee instead of 5%.
This has nothing to do with "punishing an American company." Your a tin-foil hat idiot if you think that.
blacknumbus, your conspiracy theories and cheap theories as to why the eurpoean commisson did this do you no credit. try reading up on why this was brought agianst microsoft in the first case, and why a similar judgement was reached to the one that the amercican courts passed on microsoft. so your idea that they are targetting american companies is total BS. i am not going to be drawn in to a pointless argument about the european economies, but the UK economy is doing very well thanks and the american one is the one that seems to be tanking at the moment.
and by the way, i am involved in speaking in politics, so i understand socialism and its implementation very well thank you very much.
dude, it's not like they are taking on a mom'n'pop outfit. this is microsoft, who blew a billion bucks on a piece of software.
they were even prosecuted by the US government. do you realize how bad things have to get before the corporate-friendly US government has to go after you?
Uh, are you just sad because your Microsoft stock has stagnated at $30? Would you say the breakup of Ma Bell was just "punishing american business" as well?
The fact is the American government doesn't have the balls to punish this company convicted under the Antitrust Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft), and the European courts do. I'm glad someone does! Competition is good for everyone.
1. Monopolies are the single biggest threat to the capitalist system, and therefore preventing or breaking up monopolies is the single most important task of authorities in capitalist economies. This has nothing to do with socialism; in fact in socialist economies there are only state-owned monopolies. You probably don't even know what socialism is.
2. The EU has given similar fines to European companies. That just doesn't make news in the USA.
You need to stop watching Fox News and take a look at the real world.
Who has a monopoly? I am pretty sure there is more than one operating system, and I am told by many comments here that is is much better than "Micro$oft Windoze".
Blacknimbus, I couldn't agree more. It's pathetic to see the Microsoft haters dance in the streets over this travesty of justice.
Microsoft CAN be defeated in the market place. Google, Firefox and even Apple have proved this to be the case. Claiming Microsoft is a monopoly is baseless slander that reveals the posters lack of economic knowledge. Like the vast majority of monopolies, AT&Ts monopoly power was granted by the government. Microsoft's industry dominance is the result of smart business practices. Yes, it lost an anti-trust case a decade ago. That case was tossed out on appeal, and anyone who researches it can see what a joke the original trial was.
I was on the fence about getting a new Zune. Now I will, just to show my support for the world's most successful software company.
Microsoft HAS been convicted of _monopolistic_behavior_. I'd rather they be shot down before they become a monopoly.
Actually, monopolies are the logical conclusion to a capitalist system. The bottom line is what matters - everything else is secondary.
Capitalism and socialism are economic systems - neither right nor wrong, good nor evil. Both are totalitarian regimes - capitalism worries about money and socialism worries about power, 2 sides of the same coin. These totalitarian regimes are not bad in themselves. Its the value systems of the people in power that need to be looked at. Monopolies and governments can be good, if the right people are running the show. How often does that really happen? Europe has to have better leaders than we do currently.
Capitalism helps innovation and socialism hurts innovation is bs - people innovate, not corporations or governments. Give people the right incentive (money, reputation, glory, necessity) and they can innovate. Innovation requires inspiration; this is not dependent on the economic system you are in, but money sure is an easy fix.
So forget the capitalist and socialist rhetoric and focus on the acts of Microsoft. Do we all recall Netscape, Explorer and Java? Do we recall Microsoft bullying Apple with the promise of Office for Mac? Is this new microsoft any different than the old microsoft? I read the court cases a few years back - Microsoft got off light.
BTW, in US, a monopoly is a corporation with more than 70% of the marketshare.
My $.02
Marklar, you are a rude git that obviously doesn't understand socialist goverments and the real world. This is all about punishing success and an American company.
----------------
The government brought it to court, and defended their case. Microsoft defended their case. The court decided.
Trias Politica. Court is NOT government. If it is in your country, then you should start asking yourself if you REALLY live in a democracy.
Mirage, true monopoly is seldom possible under a pure capitalist system; the market ensures that competition will break any one producers hold if that is what consumers desire. It is only when government steps in and mandates a monopoly "for public good" that we see this emerge. AT&T was a government approved monopoly. Water, power and cable TV are often such monopolies. Microsoft is NOT such a monopoly.
Microsoft might have very good, even overwhelming market share, but it is far from the sole provider. Its numerous competitors have already been listed, including those that have been doing well against it.
Thank you for your reply - I realize my message was not clear.
The problem with capitalism and monopoly is that capitalism breeds a monopoly at the end. During capitalism - yeah, sure, there will be lots of competition. Everyone is trying to get a bigger piece of the pie than they already have (assumption of capitalism). Competition kills off the weak - There can only be one left. (highlander) In the end, the long drawn out process of capitalism creates a monopoly, in theory. Why it doesn't happen in practice is because capitalism is not the only system that humans are working with - there are family systems, political systems, other economic systems, etc. The reason true monopolies do not happen is because we don't have a pure capitalist system (thank god).
My next point - gov't isn't perfect either. Gov't should stick with what it does best - punish bad behavior and set rules and standards, not create monopolies. The gov't is a juggernaut. For example, citywide Wifi is a horrible idea. Imagine the difficulty in upgrading to the next generation wifi. Once the gov't sets something in stone and the infrastructe is set in place, its nearly impossible to change/improve it without great expense. Conservatism and frugality set in, until the system falls apart. Same with monopolies - once the gov't shares its power, the gov't just created a countdown of the project's destruction.
I wonder what they mean by interoperability information... like all Windows API information or are we strictly talking about Office?
Reading the article though I think it covers things like SMB, Exchange, Active Directory(?) and the like.
I was wondering if this "one-time payment" is per version. Would they have to pay again for an update version of the kernel or specific file?
sure looks like microsoft has to open up all their APIs. what i wonder also, is if the new DX10 falls under this as well...
I think it only covers "Server PC" communications: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=335465&cid=21071461
I don't see anything in that document about the APIs for local interoperability. (Office/DirectX/.NET)
microsoft must remember, the middle finger works! stop selling in the eu. who cares, what are they going to replace it with linux, laughable, or apple os, now the laughs throw me to the floor. eu is a grunt in the middle of diarrhea, they can make a stink, but so what! what are the alternatives? now engadget (apple fudgepackers) will respond convincing leopard is viable, reality check, fudgepackers need apple, not business personnel.
so EU, F.U.
Is that you Mr. Ballmer?
You'd better stick to flippin burgers at McDonalds, cause you got absolutly no sense for business what so ever.
The EU and Microsoft have made a deal. Microsoft takes a slap on the wrist and the EU gets a paper victory. In fact, look more closely. Microsoft's patent promises only allow non-commercial open source use, and not GPL. Any commercial activity is liable to paying that 10,000 Euro minimum license fee.
What has happened is that Microsoft have gotten the green light to use their software patent portfolio against small firms who use / distribute FOSS stacks. And with the Commission's approval they can now litigate against GPL teams.
It's a disaster dressed up.
Anyone who thinks this is about an evil Europe beating up on a poor suffering US firm really needs to get out more. This is about one of the most tenacious and determined monopolists of all time getting its way in Brussels, and crying all the way to the bank.
Why do the geniuses on this board keep saying that microsft is a monopoly and post really poor examples to justify it?? Last time I checked I use Linux, which is cheaper and more stable. No one is forced to use or buy Microsoft. For the dummies who think this is MA'Bell which owned pretty much all the phone lines or a power company which may have the same type control, sorry but this isn't the same thing. Software developers are very innovative. How many times have we seen reverse engineering done or code cracked.
If a company comes out with a better product, guess what? People will go flocking and buy it and Microsoft can't stop them. Having a large marketshare does not equal monopoly. Especially since this can easily change over time and without government interference. DOES ANYONE NEED AN EXAMPLE?? Many companies have risen to the top and held signifcant market share only to completely fail or fall of its high horse somewhere down the line.
As for the EU, I understand that they are more concerned with practices by microsoft that may have been unfair or immoral and so they should fine them. How much is another question?? Excessive fines won't help the situation. And some of the things they asked for seemed silly, which they may regret when some of their software developing companies become very large and powerful down the road.
"If a company comes out with a better product, guess what? People will go flocking and buy it and Microsoft can't stop them. Having a large marketshare does not equal monopoly. Especially since this can easily change over time and without government interference. DOES ANYONE NEED AN EXAMPLE?? Many companies have risen to the top and held signifcant market share only to completely fail or fall of its high horse somewhere down the line."
This step is what the EU is doing. Forcing Microsoft to compete by opening the networking protocols so other systems can connect, validate and compete. Currently, with 95+% market share, any company that switches to Microsoft could force it's dependents to switch by not offering open connectivity. Lets say Newegg or some other computer parts place decided that tomorrow, they are switching to Microsoft Internet 2.0 tomorrow. Unfortunately, MSInternet 2.0 is only accessible by IE7 through a special protocol only available from Windows update (and it's listed as a critical security update.) Now only people who own Microsoft systems will be able to buy electronics from this store. Sure, there will be other companies out there that stay open, but at less than 5% market share, how long? "Wow, that's great!" says the user on the other end. I can guarantee that all my hardware I buy here will work with this operating system!" You see why market share and interoperability is in question here?
@Andir3.0
The problem with your example is that there is no MSInternet 2.0. If there was, yeah, that would be a problem. That kind of example is exactly what xman was talking about when he said:
"Why do the geniuses on this board keep saying that microsft is a monopoly and post really poor examples to justify it??"
Change that example to something that is really happening and I will listen.
@Andir3.0
You also forget that once NewEgg does that, their market share takes a significant hit. MS users will love them, but anyone with any hint of a preference otherwise will shun them.
If you're going to talk market, remember both sides.
Forcing a company to help their competitor is not justice, business is not about everyone wining, people have to loose to keep the economy going, when governments step in on things they don't understand they can disrupt things greatly. Look at apple, their iPod has the top market share for mp3 players, their name is starting to become the "brand name" for mp3 players in general. Should the governmental regulate them and force them to release their software and make iTunes accessible to every mp3 player. No they shouldn't apple made that player and that tecnology and it is their right to do with it what they will.
Forcing a company to help their competitor is not justice, business is not about everyone wining, people have to loose to keep the economy going, when governments step in on things they don't understand they can disrupt things greatly. Look at apple, their iPod has the top market share for mp3 players, their name is starting to become the "brand name" for mp3 players in general. Should the governmental regulate them and force them to release their software and make iTunes accessible to every mp3 player. No they shouldn't apple made that player and that technology and it is their right to do with it what they will.
Eric - stop spewing the capitalist rhetoric.
Justice is too vague a word - so let's skip over that.
People have to "loose" to keep the economy going? You are confusing a value from an economic system for reality. People don't have to lose - people lose because of choices us consumers make. There does not have to be a victim here - you make it sound like people have to victims because there are crimes. Crimes exist because of choices, not because they have to.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Pun intended. Do you pay for running iTunes? Is it inextricably linked to an OS? Has iTunes used its dominance in one market to bully others in other markets?
iPods are not as good as other MP3 players - good products dont always come out on top. The marketplace has its flaws.
Why should the government regulate? What have they done wrong? And no, they dont have an unlimited right to do what they want with their technology. Just like its against the law for me to come over to your place and bop you in the head :), it should be against the law when a corporation uses their technology in a similar vein.
Yes apple does bully content companies because they are the big boys in the game. Thats just how the game is played.
You coming to my home and bopping me in the head is far different than me using something I created in a way that I want. For example if I made a piece of art it is my right to destroy it, or change it or bury it in the backyard. The government shouldn't be able to come in and decide what I do with the things I create. And some business do have to fail for the world to keep on turning its cause and effect, its how the world works, sorry you don't see it that way. And I'm not touching the crimes thing with a 10 foot pole.
Wow - Let's start simple
Didn't NBC just walk away from iTunes? Hmmm.......If your statement is true, that should not have happened. Yes, iTunes is a big player in the game. Apple, as a corporation, wants to have the power to bully companies around. The problem is - the companies Apple wants to bully around are bigger than it. I don't want to punish Apple for being successful - they are not doing anything wrong (well for the most part anyway - the thing with AT&T is fishy to me)
I dont want the government to come into to my home to tell me what to do with I make, but even this has limits - I can't go around inviting people (all legal) to my home and then shooting them with a gun I made. The gov't can come in and punish me. But this is nothing like the MS situation - MS wants to be in everyone's home, destroying anything and pervading everything - appliances, phones, etc., to do whatever it wants - i.e. try to kill Java because it was seen as a threat to its dominance. (As an aside, can someone confirm this for me, my memory is foggy on this subject: MS was afraid of Java since it would work on any OS. If Java became the backbone of an OS, and not the OS itself, MS would be in big trouble - i.e. go bankrupt). OS is more like a weapon than a piece of art.
The reason the crime analogy works so well is because anti-trust, insider trading, etc., are all corporate versions of criminal activities. We don't need losers in the economy, just like we don't need victims. If loser loses because someone cheats, the winner should be punished.
Mirage, you can't have it both ways. If Microsoft is evil for wanting to push its operating system, then Apple is evil for wanting to push its music program and wanting to kill the PC. If Apple had a better business model in the 80's, we might be having a very different conversation right now.
Didn't many companies walk away from Microsoft when they chose an OS for their servers? I seem to recall Linux having an actual market in that field.
Again, I am not clear.
First, there is a difference between wanting to kill someone and actually killing something. The former everyone feels 10 time a day and isnt a crime. The latter only a few do and is a crime.
Second, the way something is accomplished is important. By way of analogy, my job is to pick apples, and I am diligent, hardworking, etc, and I get about 80% of the apples. Because of my hard work, others cannot get any apples, and they go broke. Of course, I want to be the best and I intend to succeed, which by implication I intend others to fail, considering there is a limited supply. However, I didn't go about this by crippling my competitors or making agreements with local gasoline stations to hurt my competitors (who does this sound like, intel maybe?)
MS is "evil" because it had a bad intent AND a committed bad act - legally, mens rea and actus reus. A crime requires both elements.
Again, thank you for your comment, as it forces me to sharpen my thoughts. At least your comments are more substantive than Eric's ;)
Another defeat to free market economy and punishing the successful. Wonderful If the competitors products were preferred, then they'd be the dominant one. I still can't believe that this is even legal in Europe. It was a frivolous lawsuit that cost an American company billions. Pathetic. We should've let Hitler take over the rest of Europe, apparently there's no intelligent life across the pond.
I agree with this decision. For an OS as semi-universal as Windows, it needs to be open to examination and regulation. That having been said, I don't see any courts forcing Apple to only charge .4% royalties on their patents. Last I heard they charge 10% for anyone who makes iPod accessories.
Apple, you're next.
If it wasn't for Microsoft...the world we know it as it is won't even exist. If the result for good business is a lawsuit and getting shunned...then what's the point of working at all? We might as well just sit in front of a computer, go on forums, live off the government and just complain about people who are more successful than we are. Oh wait, there won't be anyone for us to complain about then, because no one would want to be successful. We wouldn't even be able to get food, because as soon as one of them opens, they would be accused of monopoly.
If a business is successful, let it be successful. I don't care if Microsoft charges $10,000 for a copy of Vista 2.0, because if they did, their company would collapse, and they know it. If you don't like Microsoft, don't use it. Create your own if you really don't like anything out there. I just don't understand why people whine about how other people are successful.
Let it be successful on the merits, not because it cheats. And if you are going to cheat, don't get caught. Again, MS is not a do gooder play by the book successful business - its a get your hands extremely dirty kind of business.
The problem with MS is that their company won't collapse. Think about it - How many Joe Sixpacks have PCs? Do you think they can actually write up an OS, let alone have the patience and intelligence to learn something new? If some new company were trying to pull the crap MS was doing, they wouldn't succeed. It's good to be the king.
Who "forced" anyone to install, purchase, or otherwise use any of Microsoft's products?
Before you answer, make a concerted effort to quiet that reactionary voice in your head which instantaneously seeks to spew invective equating Microsoft with "bad." Please, make the effort, even if you do harbor a visceral dislike for Microsoft or its products, no matter the reason.
Now, ask yourself where "force" came into the picture at any point. Did someone--perhaps a company employee or government henchman--threaten you with bodily harm? Were you deprived of nourishment and prevented from contacting family by a cult, whose ultimate aim was to compel you to buy or use Microsoft's latest product offering? Did Microsoft claim eminent domain over something you own, only to then use such ownership to induce your adoption of its various software products? Have you been surreptitiously administered a drug whose effect is to somehow cause you to go out and buy Windows, Office, or an MSN subscription? Perhaps a secret, company-backed multi-level marketing scam deceived you into giving your credit or bank account number, then charged you for several thousand copies of Windows 3.1 which you are expected to sell?
Once again: Who FORCED you to buy Vista? Who FORCED you to install Word or Excel? Who FORCED you to access the World Wide Web using Internet Explorer?
The lack of an alternative product does not constitute force.
The inadequacy or incompatibility of a competing piece of software does not equal force.
The widespread adoption of one software brand by manufacturers, developers, and end users is not force.
Bundling of software features or increased integration within an existing product--not force.
Startup costs, development times, and other so-called "barriers to entry" into the software market? Challenges yes, but assuredly not force.
Working at a company whose systems all run the same software--no force there either.
Savvy marketing and aggressive pricing are not force.
Stop confusing market share with force.
The European Union ruling against Microsoft is nothing short of an economic "gun to the head" (If you smiled at the literal image of this metaphor, I have nothing more to say to you, as you represent malevolent irrationality with whom no proper discourse can safely proceed.).
The failure of so many to recognize this ruling for the evil it represents portends an uncertain future for innovators everywhere.
The wholesale endorsement of this ruling should sound the alarm for innovators large and small. If you are such a person, realize that ever-swelling masses of people have lost their grip on some fundamentals of reality, and they're out to gain a grip…on your freedom to create.
Shrug.