In the never-ending saga of Microsoft antitrust "slaps on the hand," the Redmond company might receive the healthiest financial penalty yet from the European Union Antitrust Commission. A reported fine of $2.2 billion is currently cooking by the EU Antitrust regulators, and could be served as early as February 26, 2008, according to sources who wished to remain anonymous, cited by Bloomberg. The new financial penalties are intimately connected with the landmark 2004 antitrust decision against Microsoft for the bundling of Windows Media Player in the Windows operating system and for the refusal of sharing information on Windows server protocol technology. The initial conclusion was enforced by the ruling from the EU Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, at the end of 2007.
Initially, Microsoft was fined no less than 497 million Euro, and the financial penalty was increased to a total of 775 million Euro (approximately $1.1 billion) by a subsequent 280.5 million Euro fine. In March 2007, the EU Antitrust Commission threatened Microsoft with millions of Euro in daily fines, starting with December 2005, for its failure to comply with the 2004 antitrust ruling.
View: Full Article @ Softpedia
Initially, Microsoft was fined no less than 497 million Euro, and the financial penalty was increased to a total of 775 million Euro (approximately $1.1 billion) by a subsequent 280.5 million Euro fine. In March 2007, the EU Antitrust Commission threatened Microsoft with millions of Euro in daily fines, starting with December 2005, for its failure to comply with the 2004 antitrust ruling.
View: Full Article @ Softpedia
What MS has to go through as the market leader is pretty crazy, these days. Can't they include a bloody media player in their OS? Even Ubuntu ships with a media player.
And they've been more open in APIs and standards than their major OS competitor.
which competitor exactly?
apple? Linux?
Now, how, exactly do you even think that these two implementations of including media playing capabilities are similar?
But compared to Linux/BSD? Not even close to being open and transparent.
Now, how, exactly do you even think that these two implementations of including media playing capabilities are similar?
Well Mark, WMP is completely removable as well in Windows, so that is a non issue and similar to the "free" and open Ubuntu.
Your accusation that WMP is used by MS to promote Windows-specific protocols is more of an accusation of opinion, if I may say so. WMP has some Windows-only protocols, but so do Linux systems (ogg). And, as much as Ogg can be played on Windows, WM streams can be played on Linux. Actually, I don't think you're referring to that right? You're referring to DRM. Well, DRM sucks, and consumers have a choice in avoiding it. I myself have never made a DRM purchase. I don't think that you're fair to count it against MS for simply supporting DRM in their OS, even though DRM necessarily leads to a closed implementation.
But compared to Linux/BSD? Not even close to being open and transparent.
True, but Linux/BSD cost more in terms of both developer and consumer effort. Why do we want systems to be open/transparent? To make the lives of developers easier. I think open-source advocates lose sight of this. For developers, what in Linux can be as productive and powerful as Visual Studio?
which competitor exactly?
apple? Linux?
XP!
WMP includes support for formats covered by Microsoft patents, therefore cannot legally used in Linux. Then your bit of misdirection, trying to call ogg "linux specific" is laughable. It is an open format for all. Yes, I know this concept is foreign to anyone firmly indoctrinated in Microsoft goodness. But the difference is a one-way street compared to a two-way. OggVorbis is free for all.
Yes, I agree with you that DRM sucks. Microsoft has tried two different DRM schemes, and has finally come out and said that they aren't all that fired up about DRM. Apple and Microsoft both push DRM products, yet speak against it.
And development costs more expensive for Linux/BSD? According to some "Get the Facts" studies yes. And according to other studies no. I guess it is too inconvenient for you to look at a balanced picture to admit that there are cases where BSD/Linux can be a cost advantage. Instead you like to regurgitate the Microsoft party line, and make a broad statement to apply to every circumstance for all time.
I might as well try to have a reasoned discussion on this with Steve Ballmer.
I'm happy just being a user.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Microsoft should just not trade in the EU.
... Wait, what?
I don't get it where you guys get those... Firstly, the EU budget is in excess of 120 billion euros. Secondly, the EU budget isn't meant for many things, things are mainly financed from national budgets, so it doesn't really need more money.
I don't get it where you guys get those... Firstly, the EU budget is in excess of 120 billion euros. Secondly, the EU budget isn't meant for many things, things are mainly financed from national budgets, so it doesn't really need more money.
It was a joke from the originators comment! I totally agree with you.
Nuff Said.
Imagine how bad CPUs would be if Intel had no significant competitors. I'd probably be writing this on a 500 Mhz Pentium 2. That is what the situation IS like with Microsoft!
Yes, most of their products are fine (as in they generally work as stated), but they would be much better and a lot cheaper if they actually had a genuine competitor.
Just curious...
Are you suggesting that Windows Media Player is a monopoly? Or that somehow having it as a Windows component since Windows 3.1 has prevented people from adopting alternatives like iTunes, Winamp, etc?
Or are you suggesting that Windows Server has a monopoly, and nobody uses Linux / Unix servers anymore?
What I don't understand is how opening up the Windows Server API's has anything to do with how the Media player was bundled with windows... that just never made sense to me... EU goes after MS for the media player then comes back and says OPEN UP YOUR WINDOWS API's! the two are disconnected completely... Heck even in the US with the IE anti-trust stuff it never got this crazy over money...
And they laughed at the DoJ.
Microsoft will only move if it's cheaper than staying still.
I wish one day Windows out of the box would be as fully featured as the latest Apple OS but that's never going to happen with the EU being like this over silly things.
Anyone tried Windows DVD Maker? that should be classified as one of the worst apps ever. Maybe that was just MS but perhaps it's so they didn't get another slap on the wrists from the EU.
Basically, I think as long as all components can be removed or have an optional install on first start up like tick boxes and all info available to anyone to see how it works, the EU should back off. I want Windwos 7 to be a pretty much all in one, great performing feature rich windows.
It's call capitalism folks.
Personally, and this is me... I think the money if they did fine them this should go to people who don't have money to start their own technology company... there are lots of people out there with great ideas, just no money to make them into light!
Most EU money goes on the CAP, and most of that goes to France.
So, basically it will be used to subsidise French farmers, ironically killing off competition in the food markets. This leads to massive over-production, environmental damage, 3rd world poverty (they can't compete with subsidised food), and below standard food.
and microsoft got it hard and rough
and microsoft got it hard and rough
No this is called stupidity on the EU, yet again. They can claim all this antitrust all they want, but fact is users DONT WANT the stripped down versions
I want to make sure the EU is accountable and that the fine isn't merely a nice little money earner but I also want them to protect EU citizens from aggressive, anti-consumer business tactics and money is what speaks clearest to businesses / shareholders. We're hardly in a fair position to comment on this specific fine because 1) it is only a rumour, and 2) we do not have access to, or the ability to analyse, the same information as the EU - but is it really that hard to imagine that Microsoft has broken competition laws? The US has investigated Microsoft and recently extended monitoring, so it suggests that there is plenty going on here.
and microsoft got it hard and rough
Will everyone be saying the same thing when they go after Apple someday? Yes someday Apple could be a majority... and Apple does like to lock you into formats and their software
Hell, whenever I reformat I always download VLC player and set that up as the default player. I don't think I have used WMP in the past several years.
This lawsuit makes no sense.
I realize that the complaint pertains to ther server kernel as well, but even so. Including a piece of software in the lawsuit that does not force the user to use it and only it makes no sense.
anyways, the proof is in their treatment of other companies like apple, its more restrictive and has even less options, but its okay because their smaller. i understand that microsoft has done some pretty questionable things in the past, but so far as I can tell, that has nothing to do with this fine
people, you cant have it both ways; you either have free markets or you have state owned companies, you cant have government telling corporations which features they can or cant install unless its something unethical and/or illegal, neither of which apply when you're telling one group its not okay while you let others slide (in the case of media players).
"Microsoft did implement a Windows server protocol licensing program, but the EU Commission argued that the prices demanded by the company were too high in comparison with the small amount of innovation comprised by the technology."
I doubt this will be the last penalty either. They will probably start putting fines on other immaterial things like the one with windows media player. I think it's just pushing it at this point, at this rate MS may incur more losses than profit from the EU market, increasing the prices for their software to account for this will probably get them into another lawsuit, maybe something like "charging too much for non-innovative technology". If they demand change they're getting it, but apparently what they want is the money.
Last edited by helios01 on 26 Feb 2008 - 20:54
Maybe if these companies who have been "damaged" by not being able to compete in the Windows arena turned their efforts to writing software for Linux a whole new market may emerge for them. It would be one solution to the catch 22 of Linux (not enough commercial software because there are not enough users because there is not enough commercial software.)
Personally, would I like to have proper documentation for the Microsoft API's? Sure. Do I think they should be forced to give me it? No. That is their choice. Free market philosophy says that if they continue doing something to hurt their product's acceptance they will fail to keep market share. So I continue to write software for both Windows, and better versions for Linux. (Of course right now I can't make a bloody thing on the Linux versions because the Linux community still has an aversion to paying for anything. That is a separate issue.)
Have people ever heard of Aggregate Value for products? this is how i see this. If they block the installation of something, there will be different, but it isn't right now.
There's nothing stopping anyone from downloading WMP. MS has an unfair advantage over competitors when it bundles non-essential applications with the OS.
Are they hiring pre-schoolers as writers now? God it must be embarrassing to not comprehend English well enough to understand "healthiest".
How the EU has managed to spend their first theft from Microsoft I have no idea. Maybe they should rob a bank instead. At least it would make more sense.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.