Microsoft loses
Huge sighs of relief around the European Commission, as give an unexpectedly wholehearted and against
If they had instead backed the company it would have left the commission鈥檚 reputation - or perhaps I mean self-image - as a champion of consumers and crusader for competition in tatters.
That would have been particularly galling in a week when President Jose Manuel Barroso is due to unveil the plan to break up big energy firms in Europe. On that front, the commission has had to compromise and it is expected their plan will to offer two options. One would be full , as it's called in the unlovely jargon. The second would be a compromise. It would mean that the monopoly would be broken up to an extent, still owned by the same company but operated by different people. Who presumably have to peer over Chinese walls and not talk to each other.
It's a case where the Germans and French, who prefer the latter, weaker choice are likely to win over the Brits and the Dutch, championing a more liberal market.
Microsoft鈥檚 home maybe the world鈥檚 biggest superpower but the USA doesn鈥檛 have politicians sitting around the table in the council and commission so it may lack the clout of or Germany鈥檚 in this arena.
The commission is now looking forward to piling fines on Microsoft if it doesn鈥檛 hurry up and make sure its systems can talk to those of other companies. They are also looking at two new complaints against Microsoft Office and Microsoft Vista.
It鈥檚 always nice meeting someone who is obviously having a good day and was almost overflowing with joy when I met him earlier today. He鈥檚 a lawyer who鈥檚 been pursuing Microsoft for the last nine years and founded the
This quixotically named organisation is made up of companies who say their business has been damaged by Microsoft. The basic claim against Microsoft is that when you buy a PC or laptop with a Microsoft operating system you also get Windows media player and a whole lot of other things that allegedly mean those who invent rival software have no realistic chance of selling their product, even though it might be a lot better.
At this point I鈥檓 sure I can hear cries of 鈥淏uy an Apple then!鈥 but Vinje seems as much concerned with the economic benefits of liberal competition than the real or imagined failings of Microsoft鈥檚 various products.
He says it is too late for rival media players to make any impact but not for new ideas still in production, like voice or handwriting recognition. He goes on to make an interesting claim.
If you are a young computer scientist and you come up with a bright new idea and you don鈥檛 have any money, you need independent financing and you have to go to a venture capitalist. And one of the top questions on a venture capitalist's list of issues today is, 鈥淚s there any chance Microsoft might bundle a similar product?鈥 If your answer is 鈥淵es, I might be standing in the way of Microsoft,鈥 then you don鈥檛 get any money and the market is deprived of an innovation.
Will that change, I asked? 鈥淭hat depends if Microsoft complies with the principles of today鈥檚 decision.鈥
The commission will be watching...
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Apple are of course no saints when it comes to interoperability either. Does iTunes work on Linux? Of course not. Can songs bought from Apple work on any music player other than an iPod? Not without tedious burning and re-ripping, leading to some loss of fidelity.
But before the Apple zealots jump on me, the difference is that Microsoft has had an effective monopoly on desktop PC operating systems for a long time and has been found guilty (in US courts as well as in the EU) of abusing that monopoly to prevent its competitors from competing in other kinds of software.
Microsoft's recent shenanigans in the esoteric sounding field of document format standardisation reveal just how far they go to get their own way. The ISO already approved the Open Document Format as a standard - but now Microsoft wants its own format approved too (why have one standard when you can have two!) Suddenly lots of countries that previously showed no interest in this discussion have joined the technical committee. By a strange coincidence most of them voted to approve Microsoft's proposal, despite it having very severe flaws. Fortunately it got voted down.
It's not only the media player, it's also Netscape's internet browser (but that's an old story). A judge in the USA had proposed that Microsoft be broken up into two independent parts but the Cheney/Bush team put its foot down
Evidentally Europe is learning well from America, if you can't beat them, sue them.
You Europeans are so used to being given technology advances by the USA, you have to basically mug a US company that won't turn over everything they have to you on a silver platter----Medical advances and new drugs--almost 100% given to you by the USA---actually, US TAXPAYERS and people who have to pay what the drugs actually COST TO INVENT--unlike you parasites---military technology, same thing.....we even pay for almost all of your defense. You are pathetic, undeserving mooches with no shame whatsoever---I'd love to see you go after a European country for the same thing--will you? NO!! Shameless parasites---I respect Europeans so little anymore--actually, not at all!!
Care to comment on the 大象传媒's iPlayer, its connections to Microsoft and the implications for non-MS (competing) computer systems?
Thanks.
In 1995 I bought my first computer in which prevously free Microsoft software was deleted by an antitrust ruling forcing me to spend an additional $50 to obtain this software.
If antitrust had been strong in Henry Ford's day, the automobile would be shipped without transmissions to protect weak transmission suppliers.
I don't want to select transmissions, and I don't want to select software. I want a computer that fuctions seamlessly and reliably and requires no more thought than using the telephone.
The present ruling helps weak competitors at the expense of consumers and truly leaves any reputation of the EU commission as a champion of consumers in tatters.
Keep up the good work, EU!
Boeing is too big and succesful, so force it to reveal its technology to Airbus.
Intel is too big and succesful, so force it to reveal its technology to Siemens and Alcatel.
Lockheed is too succesful, so force it to reveal its technology to Dassault and BAE.
Google is to big and succesful, so let it create its competitor for EU.
Californian winemakers are getting too big and succesful, so let them teach French, Spanish and Italian competitors how to improve their products.
i-Pod is too successful and works only with Apple's propriatary service and software, so...
Starbuck is too big and succesful, so...
No, it's getting to ridiculous for words.
Anybody who has even a rudimentary knowledge of computers knows that he/she can uninstall Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, and even Notepad just with few clicks and download free and compatible alternatives, such as Real Player, Firefox, etc. And Apple product aside, there's a very cheap substitute for Windows OS in a form of readily available Linux. But obviously members of EU Comission don't have even such a rudimentary knowledge.
Or is it simply en effort to compensate for its previous, highly embarrassing and widely poblicised defeats in lame attempts at protectionism and tampering with free market forces?
EU is simply demonstrating its impotence. AGAIN.
1. France has promised to create a French Google, to brake Google's "monopoly".
It only embarrased itself. Big time.
2. Airbus promised to build a plane competitive with Boeing's Dreamliner (B-787).
So far it failed, and A-350 is nowhere to be seen.
3. EU has announced several years ago that it'd build and deploy a paid-for alternative servive (GALILEO) to free American GPS. Galileo is not only years behind schedule but in a serious financial trouble.
4.Are we going to see a working European alternative to Windows? Don't hold your breath, particularly if EU Comission continues to finance its activities with fines imposed on MS.
However, those fines may be late in coming, for if MS appeals that decision in the Supreme Court, it'll automatically will buy itself a two-year respite.
And in the meantime EU customers are being forced to buy Windows without a media player, but are paying more for the pleasure.
hummm and what if you come up with a bright idea for new software which Microsoft did not think about and had to share the vital information with the rest of the world?
The judgement is wrong as it will indeed penalise initiative. Why should I develop a software if the Commission then imposes me to share it so that others can produce add-ons?
Mr Vinje seems very concerned about the Windows Media Player, forgetting that Apple does exactly the same with its QuickTime player. In addition, no-one is forced to buy a pc with Windows installed. If you want you can ask for any other operating ssystem (Linux...), but the reason hardly anyone does shows that demand is focussed around Microsoft.
On a side not, Microsoft Windows also comes with its own web browser, EExplorer, yet this did not prevent the considerable success of Mozilla FFirefox!
It is interesting to see how ill-formed people will criticize the EU right or wrong! Microsoft was sued in the States as well and found guilty there too, but fighting through the court system there took for ever and the US States that were suing Microsoft gave up in the end. Also because by that stage IE that Microsoft was adding to the operating system and charging for it that way had destroyed Netscape. It is not just the media player, what about Java? When Microsoft realised that Java applets were real competition to its own C#, .NET solution it stopped supporting it through its IE (except an old version of it).
So good for the commission one good decision well taken! I wished the US had the stomach to stick to its guns all those years ago. By the way I have more than rudimentary knowledge of computers of the previous poster, to the guy about the firebox, what about Netscape, it had 80% of the market before Microsoft started offering IE "free" while charging for it through the operating system.
So in conclusion because its a commission decision it doesn't automatically mean it is bad, lets rubbish it!
The judgement is right! and I really can't understand how anyone with a little bit of knowledge about the concept of a monopoly can disagree, this is hitting these companies that make it harder for the little guy to get into business look at the booms after large companies that get broken up and more importantly there patents made public! and in the end its a lot harder to edit your windows the way you want it, anyone who ever used linux knows that and why is that? copyright!! we all know microsoft's secret ninja monkeys would wipe them out!!! hahaha they just want the heads up on creating/networking applications within windows! pushing everyone else out!!
There seem to be all the usual ranters, anti EU for the EU and as always they miss the point. Microsoft is a huge international company, and like all huge companies it would like to become a monopoly. Basic economics states that all companies try to become monopolies. The US government tried to break up Microsoft, to force it to split it's operating system (Windows) business from it's other software business. That failed because basically the US is now so corrupt and controlled by corporations that the rule of law is undermined. Now the EU is trying, good luck we don't need one company with that sort of power. It's like licensing the patent for human DNA to a single drug company, now there's thought 'Glaxo' eat your heart out.
This legal battle reminds me of the tax avoidance convictions of American gangsters. The fact is that Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched and harmful that even trans-national organisations find it difficult to bring them to heel. We saw in America that individual states couldn't bring enough pressure to bear to make a real difference. The company's tactics in continually renewing it's global lock-in is clever and subtle. Consider BG's use of "charity" to various developing countries with low-cost/free computers and software. The American government will never break up Microsoft and in fact resist every effort to weaken them, partly this is because of the revenue it sucks in from other countries, more importantly Microsoft's dominance in software is a major policy tool for America and it's war to impose the dominance of it's economy and ideologies. The EU has got a major role in ensuring that EU citizens benefit from a regulated market with viable free choice. Unbundling and inter-operability are important elements but I can't see it making much difference to the market right now. It might make a difference in 10 years if the commision is given the teeth to properly police MS and has the courage to use them. I would like to see the commision more involved in somehow ensuring that hardware vendors don't support the MS lock-in by legislating that drivers are usable cross-platform. This is possible and would do more damage to MS than individual fines by letting ordinary users explore other OSs and applications and making their own choice. That is a free market.
Oh dear, apparently yet more examples of propaganda exploiting a bad educational and communication system that has promoted consumer ignorance.
Is it really too difficult for the winging MS supporters to understand? Europe isn't attacking (American) companies simply because they are too good and strong and wise and efficient, etc..... The EU is punishing a company for apparently proven unfair practices. Incidentally, after a US court came to similar conclusions (before the case was quietly dropped -presumably for political reasons).
Perhaps the MS supporters could specify exactly what these wonderful innovations are that MS has supposedly pioneered -because many people experienced in computers have the impression that innovation has actually been reduced under current conditions. How much of MS technology was actually developed by MS itself -and how much was acquired by exploiting its position of dominance? Indeed, one might even ask how that dominance was achieved: How many MS users have actually used other systems and products and have (after close and careful examination) voluntarily chosen for MS? How many people use these products simply because they believe there is no alternative?
It seems that Americans are very happy to "persuade" the Chinese, for example, to change their currency exchange rate -when this hurts US business. The US is happy to raise steel tariffs when their own products are at risk -but turn nasty as soon as someone else does something similar. They seem happiest when out there "kicking asses" and telling everybody else how to live -but when their own arses get kicked they scream blue murder. In simple school parlance this is called "cowardly bullying".
So do MS supporters want fair and level playing fields -or do they want everything their own way?
Surely it is time for the "liberal" myth of "fair and free" markets to be finally exploded: Long ago, Galbraith wrote about how corporations benefit from collaborative effort and collective management. So will somebody please explain why this is considered fine and efficient practice for commercial companies and evil socialist malpractice when practiced by societies non-commercially in self-defense against the commercial predators?
Perhaps it is a bizarre paradox -and difficult to wrap one's mind around -but maybe "protectionism" is required to create a "level playing field" when some players are infinitely bigger, more powerful and better fed than their competitors.
Size alone creates unfair competition -if also combined with unfair practices, then the world becomes more feudal than free.
I don't know where do all the people criticizing Commissions actions and the judgment of court get their ideas.
The fact of a matter is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, both in US and EU. It used its monopoly in operating systems to take over both Internet browser and Media player markets by including its offering to Windows.
Before you start complaining that the consumer is hurt if Microsoft is not allowed to include Internet browser and Media player with its operating system. That's not the case. Microsoft can bundle Internet browser and Media player with Windows, but they should come as optional extras, not as an obligatory components.
By bundling both Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player as obligatory components of Windows, Microsoft denied both consumers and computer makers change to make their own bundle. By being denied opportunity to make their own offer, it can be argued that many business cases involving other media player offerers, computer makes and content owners where lost due to Microsoft forcing their own technology down to consumers via their Windows monopoly.
This case is so easy that I just can't understand those who are rallying and crying that Microsoft was the innocent victim here. Newsflash: Microsoft isn't innocent, it's a convicted monopolist.
when can America enjoyed something
of Importance invented by european?
For years you have been riding for free our GPS system no question asked.
Microsoft invested billions into their resources when will you do the same on IT so we can enjoy a free ride also?
Shame on you,for not having the guts couage, or now how in todays world of electronic information, America will always lead the way because we have a will to be first and make a real contribution. It`s not always about cars.
The ruling only helps to confirm Europe's inability to create competitive technology or any technology for that matter. Instead of whining and resorting to lawsuits, the EU should invest in education and the creation of competitive technology.
The US DOJ declared war on Microsoft...and it lost. The EU seems at the moment to be winning this battle (hardly a skirmish in the real war) but even that could change. Microsoft has enormous advantages over the EU and every other government. It doesn't have to do business from any one place (had the DOJ won, it could simply have pulled up stakes and moved 100 miles north to Canada near Vancouver where it would have been beyond American reach) and it isn't forced to sell to anyone. By withdrawing from the EU market even temporarily and marketing a new forward incompatable variant of Windows the rest of the world could be forced to ultimately adopt, it could maroon the EU on a cyber desert island isolated from the rest of the world. This would be devastating to the entire EU economy. Don't be fooled by Bill Gates' soft spoken manner and enormous philanthropic generousity, he is a ruthless businessman who knows how to play to win. I do not expect to see him open up his black box of tricks for the rest of the world to see anytime soon so don't hold your breath. This is just round one and it isn't over yet.
Why does this discussion always seem to end up as a contest between microsoft and other products? The whole point of this ruling is that microsoft uses its dominant market position to distort trade, and push up prices on many different types of software. It does this through its bundling of software packages and the interoperability (or lack of) of the software. This doesn't matter in the context of apple or linux, as they don't hold in excess of 90% of the market for operating systems! Microsoft's bundling affects companies and individuals right across the globe and so the anti-trust authorities are quite right to red flag it from time to time, i mean just because its a big rich american company doesn't mean it shouldn't have to play fair!
My final thought is that contrary to popular belief, this ruling isn't anti-american, seeing as the majority of EU rulings on anti-trust have actually been against European companies, and so microsoft shouldn't be exempt just because its american!!
I would like to reply to the needless euro-bashing that has once again taken hold of this forum.
Firstly, this case is not the result of some European complot against American companies. The European Commission is simply enforcing, under supervision of the Community Courts, the long-standing EC competition rules and it is doing that against Microsoft, just as it has done so against many other European companies in virtually every sector ranging from breweries to steel works. Moreover, as Chris remarks Microsoft has also run afoul of US anti-trust legislation, effectively accepting a settlement in respect of similar issues as at stake in the EC case (see in that respect paras 51 to 58 of the judgment)
Secondly, the Microsoft case is quite exceptional, as there are very few super-dominant companies. Both the Commission and the CFI accept that in principle companies do not have to share things with others. But the rules may change if a level of dominance is reached. Even then the CFI accepts that the fact that an intellectual property right is at stake is a reason not to impose such an obligation. However, in exceptional cases there may also be exceptions to that intellectual property exception. These conditions were not developed by anti-Americans for Microsoft alone, actually they were applied before in respect of an Irish company (Magill) and a German one (IMS Health). In the current case the demanding test was met, according to both the Commission and the CFI. The reasoning of this case accordingly does NOT lead to car manufacturers being forced to sell cars without transmissions, nor can it be applied without nuance to the market of music players where Apple plays an important role, but probably not a super-dominant one.
Thirdly, the enforcement of competition law can only do so much. A whole library has been written about whether or not enforcement of competion rules leads to benefits for consumers or innovation. That should, however, not detract from the right and duty of competition authorities in the EU and the US alike to enforce the rules that are in force and create a level playing field.
If only Microsoft's codes were elegant and coherent, much would be forgiven them. But sometimes, Microsoft own applications don't work with Windows, as my youngest son, who's "Microsoft certified" tells me. It's aall quite logical since Bill Gates didn't even design the first DOS which he sold to IBM, he bought it from a guy in Seattle who had refused to swear to secrecy when IBM aapproached him first. If one wanted to write the list of all the unethical and stupid things Microsoft has done (remember their Lindows suit ?), that list would be longer than all the articles and blogs Mark Mardell ever wrote...
Okay Chris Netscape held the whole market at one stage, but also failed to modernise, and kept offering a programme at a fee when Microsoft was already offering its own for free (or within the price of the OS). I repeat: look at Firefox! Launched in Nov 2004 and less than three years later it holds 15% of the market.
And what about Skype? Microsoft was already offering Messenger for free with Windows, so why did Skype have such a success?
And Gmail vs Hotmail? all my friends are moving to Google's email service these days.
And all those media players? Quicktime, Real Player, iTunes, Winamp...harly the case of Microsoft squeezing the competition out...
The reality is that if you make a good productn then the consumer will reward you and turn you into the market leader. To complete the circle, Netscape Navigator did not innovate and was overtaken by Explorer, now I hear they will be launching Navigator 9...good for them, I suggest they make it graphically appeasing and, most importantly, free.
Dear Terry Barns it seems that americans have respect for no one in the planet earth!!! ;-)
A few points:
Americans, let's not turn it into a U.S. / Europe battle. If you read the judgment or log onto the internet sites of your own pioneering antitrust authorities, you will see that these took Microsoft to court for the same reasons recently, and forced it to agree to similar remedies, which were approved by the US Court of Appeal.
The European Commission, the antitrust authority that brought the claim against Microsoft is the civil service of the European Union. It is utterly distinct from any French governmental efforts to promote a French version of Google. Likewise, Airbus is a private company and has little or nothing to do with the European Commission.
PS European (and Japanese) cars make US ones look technologically dated, inefficient and poor value. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
a comment to Terry, posting #4; anyone forgotten that the Internet was invented and created by researchers at the CERN in Switserland? that some of the biggest drug companies are British and Swiss, contributing their fair share to medical advances in the world. One reason why drugs are so expensive in the US is to cover for the cost of the "sue for everything" culture.
Oh the EU has done it again - getting rulings that seek to demolish monopolies and give consumer choice. First, they insist that Toyota and other big car-makers share info with alternative repair shops (rather than allowing them to continue overcharging in their own franchises), now they've had another go at dear old Microsoft (with loveable Bill Gates, no less). Why can't they leave these people alone to screw every dollar/euro/pound sterling out of us willing customers. We just love being taken for suckers! Why aren't UKIP on the case??
You are missing a couple of points here. Apple hardware is more expensive than a PC. It is possible to mix and match PC components at varying prices, to design your own PC giving the best "bang for your buck". Not so with Apple hardware, you have to buy the factory kit and software at the official Apple price. You cannot run software written for Windows on an Apple computer. Apple is not therefore a realistic competitor of Microsoft for many applications.
A better alternative is Linux, an open-source operating system derived from Unix. But as it is "open-source", meaning it is basically freely available to everybody, there are no profits to be made. The result is that innovations are less frequent than for the commercially-driven Windows. The same is true for other open-source software, for example, the browser Firefox, the DTP package Scribus and the photo-editor Gimp, albeit these are more advanced than the comparable Microsoft products.
Another factor is that large-scale users who have their own technical support sections are geared to Microsoft or Apple, depending on which they use. Some can handle both. It is very difficult for outfits who do not support both to mix and match, as they would have to spend big to acquire the "bilingual" expertise. Add Linux to the mix and it becomes a nightmare. This is one area where freer access to more of Microsoft's operating softwars source code would make a big difference.
The big disadvantage of Microsoft monopoly is that it is prolonging the life of outdated PC technology, based on the 30+ year-old IBM-AT, and stultifying the development of radical new and innovative solutions to business/home computing. There is a better way out there, but Microsoft will not let us have it until they are geared up to profit from it.
Another big disadvantage of Windows, apart from limits to its operability, is tha large amount of spyware that Microsoft have incorporated in it. You cannot have Windows without the spyware. That is impeding genuine competition.
The bitterness shown by Americans here doesn't really shock me at all as it confirms a pattern I've seen in international forums in past years: Even if one hates something or some aspect about ones own country, one will tend to defend that very same aspect if it is attacked by someone from another country.
That means that an American Linux hippy, with the requisite beard, and a semi-literate rohypnol taking American teenage Microsoft Xbox 360 gamer will both agree that we Europeans are Communist bastards for hurting their beloved Microsoft, just as a conservative, pasty skinned, Euroskeptic Englishmen will feel just as irritated by all the anti-European hysteria as a liberal, womanising Frenchman, even if only because neither the Englishman nor the Frenchman feel they can be grouped together as Europeans.
I think I'll stop here. I'm laughing too hard at all this nationalistic bleeding heart rubbish.
I would bet that, but for some regions, all EU countries use microsoft as their system of choice in their administrations. And I am sure that in many schools it is Windows the OS installed in computers and taught to the students.
So I am not really sure what is the use of punishing microsoft for one reality: using MS software is a no brainer for 95% of the people who use a computer (and by the way, I use linux, so I am not precisely a stauch defender of Bill Gates).
If the EU wants to protect consumers, fining a company or forcing it not to include certain applications in its OS is not from my opinion the way to go.
Instead, the EU should promote the use of public standard file formats to ease the information exchange between the different platforms and let the free market decide by itself which is the best platform/software/application for every need.
National administrations should be the first in doing this. After all, part of our taxes are going to the software companies which provide OS and applications for the government and civil servants.
I find this posting truly surreal, coming from on organisation whose 'iPlayer' doesn't work with Mozilla Firefox [or any other browser come to that], only 'Internet Explorer'..
Maybe you need to look at the mote in your own eye first here ??
Oh for heaven's sake, the anti-European hysteria in some posts is so strong that if it was reversed and directed at an American, they would accuse you of being rude.
The facts are these: the European Union is regulating an effective monopoly supplier of a product in an attempt to provide competition for the consumer. And it has not just picked on American companies to do this but ones in its own back yard as well.
Let us not forget too, for example, that there was one very big and powerful oil company, Standard Oil, which was broken up some time ago. An American company in a monopoly position broken up by the American (yes, American) government.
So calm down for Pete's sake. The European Union is doing today what the government of the United States did years ago.
Now we hear that European Comission wants the stalled 3.4bn-euro GALILEO boondogle project to be 100% funded by the European Union taxpayers.
Since those taxpayers might rebel I understand now why EC fines Microsoft. It simply wants the US company to pitch in.
Classic soft-minded business legislation rife with future, unintended consequences. Why do our Euro-lords think they should have anything to say about this? Do you know why Netscape failed? Because they had a product that didn't help consumers. Do you know why Firefox is succeeding? Because they do. What affect can the Euro-lords hope to achieve over an incredibly dynamic and complex process? None that they can imagine. They are distant, they have a lot of power, and nobody votes for them. Long live the King.
I just wish people would actually read the court decision before commenting.
241 The Court also notes that, as Microsoft itself expressly acknowledges in its written submissions (see, for example, paragraphs 14 and 48 of the reply), its competitors will not be in a position to develop products which are 鈥榗lones鈥 or reproductions of Windows work group server operating systems by having access to the interoperability information at which the contested decision is aimed. As stated at paragraphs 192 to 206 above, that information does not relate to Microsoft鈥檚 source code. In particular, Article 5 of the contested decision does not require Microsoft to disclose implementation details to its competitors.
Microsoft is not being forced to divulge any code or copywritable information. What is being demanded is for a 3rd party computer on the same network to have sufficient documentation of the messages, some say protocols, to talk to a Microsoft server as another server without error. Think of it this way. If you only had one phone company but you wanted to start up a company to make nicer phones for homes but the phone company said "Sorry, if we told you which wires at the wall jack we use we would be giving away valuable trade secrets" nobody would believe it for a second. Further, in the US, you might be guilty of a felony crime if you hooked up an oscilloscope to monitor the wires and see for yourself. That being the case, we are all dependent on legal precedent to proceed to compete.
Clearly, the people who don't know about computers are the ones misunderstanding and misrepresenting the EU decision. This comment, for example: "Anybody who has even a rudimentary knowledge of computers knows that he/she can uninstall Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, and even Notepad.." is someone who clearly has never tried this.
Microsoft got into its current position of dominance not through superior products, lower price or the standard forms of competitive commerce, but through gestapo-like marketing tactics (forcing dealing to pay for their OS whether they installed it or not, for example).
Microsoft has a long history of buying up its rivals and/or buying its "innovations" from other companies (i.e, MS/PC-DOS, IE, Hotmail, Word, etc.).
And, although this is not a monopoly issue, Microsoft, because of its sloppy programming and/or marketing oriented decisions, is almost single-handedly responsible for most information theft, spam and general internet-related crime.
IOW, they richly deserved this decision, which was preceded by exactly the same decision in the US and South Korea. It is no coincidence.
Many commenters here show a complete lack of understanding of the software market.
1) Microsoft has a natural monopoly in the software market (let's leave aside the question of how that position was achieved). Many computer users, especially corporate, have very little choice and are forced by circumstances to use Microsoft products (Windows + Office). This, together with OEM preloads, gives Microsoft an unique position and almost inexhaustible revenue stream.
2) Apple is almost in the opposite situation. Apple computers and software are practically never the default choice, people only buy them if they truly want to. Same goes for Linux, although it operates with a completely different business model.
3) Claims that Microsoft's competitors just need to come up with a better product and that this is all sour grapes are, frankly, utter nonsense. Only someone very unfamiliar with the software industry can say that. Netscape had better product. Borland had better product. Real Networks had better product. Microsoft destroyed them all because Microsoft could easily afford to sell competing products below cost or give away for free.
4) Today there's an unhealthy situation in the operating system and basic application software market. There's much stagnation and little progress. Mr. Vinje explains why - creating software that might conceivably compete with Microsoft is not a good business plan these days.
5) Many posters here are conveniently forgetting that in the US, Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly position. It's not like the EU sees improper behaviour where the US believes everything is peachy. The only difference between the EU and US is that in the US, Microsoft's punishment was practically nonexistent because of political pressure that Microsoft is unable to exert in Europe.
"The EU has got a major role in ensuring that EU citizens benefit from a regulated market with viable free choice." [#13]
By definition, in a regulated (interventionist) market customers don't have a free choice.
A classic example: EU citizens are forced to buy more expensive bananas from former French colonies because cheaper ones from Carribean are not let in.
And even a more absurd example:
EU citizens pay more for Windows without a media player, than US citizens for the same product WITH one.
Quite pathetic, wouldn't you say?
"Airbus is a private company and has little or nothing to do with the European Commission." [#24]
Oh yes is does, and a plenty.
Airbus, as we speak, is being bailed out by EY (read:its taxpayers) after the A-480 white elephant disaster, and R&D for A-350 is being subsidized by EU as well.
Ilegally, may I add, with a lawusit
already in WTO Tribunal.
" anyone forgotten that the Internet was invented and created by researchers at the CERN in Switserland?" [#25]
Don't rewrite quite recent history:
Internet has been invented by PENTAGON (most specifically its DARPA]. You're confusing it with merely one if its parts, World Wide Web.
But then, it doesn't surprise me since I've read on HYS that "US attacked Japan" [sic].
"The big disadvantage of Microsoft monopoly is that it is prolonging the life of outdated PC technology, based on the 30+ year-old IBM-AT, and stultifying the development of radical new and innovative solutions to business/home computing" [#27]
That's simply not true. The real reason is that HARDWARE, specifically microprocessors' and chipsets' producers want to remain backward (excuse the pun) compatible in order not to loose a share of existing market.
But then you know it, don't you?
This ruling is wrong. interestingly before it was a complaint that so many features are missing from windows and you have to install a lot of extra stuff. how come it become a problem all of a sudden? and you are not forced to use madia player, you can install any other software you want. apple is praised that the MacOS comes with everything included. Isn't that a problem? i never heared about apple being sued...
i don't understand this whole thing. so what if media player comes with windows? don't use it if you don't want it! the EU would be better of spending there time and money on some important things...
Strangely enough some comments by American readers are extremely against Europe and supported by completely false claims (about pharmaceutical products, defence products etc). No, Boing does not have to reveal any technological secrets to Airbus - no need for that as Airbus is technologically in front of Boeing.
As far as Microsoft is concerned - US courts delivered pretty sharp rullings against them but it all got watered-down. Microsoft's game with "standards" is well known and we all know where it leads. Once the "browser war" was finished with defeat of Netscape, Microsoft did nothing to approve their Internet Explorer. Nothing till Mozilla returned to the battlefield. Unfortunately, Microsoft turned into fat and lazy company and that is bad news for everyone.
For gentlemen who said he just wants a system that works - well my dear friend have you installed Vista on your PC and realised that many things don't work. My advice would be - yes buy Mac and it will work. I rather chose Linux but hey it is my problem and nobody else's :)
About Apple - thanks God they are not as big as Microsoft. But at least they don't sell product that does not work and does not fall on it's nose so often.
I do not know whats monopolistic about an invention.Like the car,build your own if you want change or make a radio that you can put in the "other" car that works on its design,not yours.You can make any committee that goes against anything but doesnt that fall under malicious prosecution? just because another wants to change your system doesnt mean that they have a right to do just that,make it so they can make a dollar.Dont make fantasy softwares that wont run on current OS systems.Build your own PC or dont buy them,its not like they make you buy it.It is after all a choice to have one.Id just like to know just who the EU thinks it is to punish us,didnt we escape their country a few hundred years for such demanding drivel ?This is opening a door that the EU might not be able to close and their inventions left to the same demise.Watch what you have think you've won.
I haven't read all the messages in this discussion, but what I have read centres around windows media player and whether it is bundled with windows, and comparing this practice with Apple, and iTunes. This focuses on the wrong issue entirely, in my opinion.
As a software developer, I find it more interesting that Microsoft are being forced to ensure that their technologies are interoperable with competing products and platforms. I shall illustrate why with an example (conjured from my imagination).
Company X has been commissioned to provide a service for the British Library. The task is to convert books stored in Microsoft Word files to another format specified by the library. Company X experiments with various solutions (including one provided by Microsoft) and finds all to be unacceptable. Company X is forced to the conclusion that they have to construct their own tools to extract data from Word documents and meet the British Library's requirements.
As things stand at the present time, Company X will not find writing the conversion tools easy, mainly because Microsoft don't publish specifications on how Word documents are structured. They would have to resort to reverse engineering the Word format, which would be error prone, as OpenOffice programmers will confirm. Company X are hampered unreasonably in their pursuits.
Contrast this with Adobe's PDF format. PDF is a proprietary format, yet Adobe saw fit to publish its specifications. As a result, there are many programs (that are not from Adobe) that can read and write PDFs. If Company X had the problem of converting PDF documents, and found every PDF reader in the world unacceptable, they could implement a reliable PDF reader of their own with relative ease.
This kind of problem is typical of most of Microsoft's technologies. The CIFS/SMB file sharing protocol is another example that is not specified. If I had to make an implementation of that protocol in my workplace on some platform other than Windows, it would be a massive pain to do so (whether I wanted to make money from that implementation or not). Given the effort involved, the company would probably choose to buy Microsoft, where it otherwise wouldn't have done. _That_ is the key point.
The EU decision goes a long way to remedying that, by stipulating that Microsoft must disclose interoperability information, to ensure their communications protocols and file formats work seamlessly with other platforms (they explicitly mention 'work group server operating systems'). This would necessitate them publishing specifications for programmers to work towards. I don't know if the ruling would require the Word document format to be specified, but I imagine CIFS would definitely be a prime candidate for disclosure.
The issues for interoperability alone have left me cheering the decision.
This ruling is pretty insane. The anti-MS people have forgotten that this also means the EU can sue Apple, Sony, IBM, ETC. Any non-EU manufacturer of High Tech and force them to release their product code and trade secrets and force open (non licenseable) interoperability. In other words, if it isnt EU it shouldn't make a profit. The solution they want is simple, since the EU doesn't like MS then Windows should not be licensable in the EU. Microsoft, Apple, AMD and Intel should immediately halt all licensing and sales in the EU. Those elitest protectionist that control the EU market to make sure only their products can be sold should live with their products... Oh, I forgot, they never produced an operating system or microprocessor for modern machines and would have to resort to Linux and Chineese counterfeit processors. They want US code and script given to them for free so they can make their own without doing the work. Well, good the anti MS people will be glad to help them convert to Linux.
In reply to: "The big disadvantage of Microsoft monopoly is that it is prolonging the life of outdated PC technology, based on the 30+ year-old IBM-AT, and stultifying the development of radical new and innovative solutions to business/home computing" [#27]
* 37.
* At 11:44 AM on 19 Sep 2007,
* Mirek Kondracki wrote:
"That's simply not true. The real reason is that HARDWARE, specifically microprocessors' and chipsets' producers want to remain backward (excuse the pun) compatible in order not to loose a share of existing market."
Actually, one might also ask why Intel based (IBM-PC) systems dominate the chip market. Motorola chips had far less backward compatability problems and were easilly upgraded. They were used in the cruise rocket, Atarai, Amiga, Apple computers -and Motorola, together with IBM, produced the earlier versions of the (Apple) Power PC, risk system. Motorola had a good interupt system -essential to time sharing (linux is basically a translation to Intel system of Unix type systems -which even ran on (8-16 bits) Motorola processor before Intel became so popular).
Consumer ignorance is the answer: People use MS (and Intel) because they are poorly informed about alternatives. Publicity and not performance is what sells in a consumerist indoctrinated society.
#27 wrote: 'You are missing a couple of points here ... You cannot run software written for Windows on an Apple computer. Apple is not therefore a realistic competitor of Microsoft for many applications.'
Which is, of course, utter rubbish. When Apple dropped Motorola as its CPU supplier and moved over to the Intel platform, that opened up an interesting aspect of owning a Mac: the ability to install Windows on Mac hardware and run it 鈥 as well as Windows applications. Though why anyone would actually want to is beyond me, but I digress.
The fact is non-Windows operating systems are realistic competition to MS's crash-fest of a monstrosity, not only because of their own virtues as software, but also by virtue of the fact that either through emulation or outright software support, Windows and its programmes can be made to work with other OSes. Not so when it comes to Windows allowing software from OSes to work with it.
I really do wish people would do some basic research before posting statements like the one above. With the much-vaunted internet at one's disposal, it's not a very difficult task.
In any case, good on the EU, I wholeheartedly support their final decision.
In reply to: "The big disadvantage of Microsoft monopoly is that it is prolonging the life of outdated PC technology, based on the 30+ year-old IBM-AT, and stultifying the development of radical new and innovative solutions to business/home computing" [#27]
* 37.
* At 11:44 AM on 19 Sep 2007,
* Mirek Kondracki wrote:
"That's simply not true. The real reason is that HARDWARE, specifically microprocessors' and chipsets' producers want to remain backward (excuse the pun) compatible in order not to loose a share of existing market."
Actually, one might also ask why Intel based (IBM-PC) systems dominate the chip market. Motorola chips had far less backward compatability problems and were easilly upgraded. They were used in the cruise rocket, Atarai, Amiga, Apple computers -and Motorola, together with IBM, produced the earlier versions of the (Apple) Power PC, risk system. Motorola had a good interupt system -essential to time sharing (linux is basically a translation to Intel system of Unix type systems -which even ran on (8-16 bits) Motorola processor before Intel became so popular).
Consumer ignorance is the answer: People use MS (and Intel) because they are poorly informed about alternatives. Publicity and not performance is what sells in a consumerist indoctrinated society.
Some complain that Europe does not create new inventions and technologies. But that will not change so long as Europe's universities, research institutions, scientific and social discourse and markets continue to be fragmented along the ethnic and linguistic lines, with each EU state offering a cozy but uncompetitive environment for its domestic players.
A fragmented Europe is simply not able to compete against the US in the global marketplace of ideas and that will not change unless the European integration proceeds to a higher level, allowing Europeans to fully benefit from their currently underused intellectual potential.
The fundamental point which almost everybody seems to miss is that computer operating systems are not like cars or washing machines. Nobody complains about Opel "bundling" a Technics audio system with its cars, because if you hate Opel and its bundled items, you can buy a Toyota or whatever.
The problem is not bundling, it's the difficulty in having any real competition between operating systems. Linux and Mac OS exist, but you can't simply change over to Linux if you dislike Windows, because it's a technically complex process that involves changing all your software. To change this, you'd have to impose standards on OS makers to force interoperability. But inevitably, standards are the lowest common denominator. You'd have to ban OS vendors from adding changes that could make client software incompatible; but that would reduce the quality of OSs and make them into bare-bones commodities. Interoperability is also costly. You'd be forcing all consumers to buy more powerful machines just to satisfy regulators' desire to force competition on the industry.
Unbundling is no solution either. The nonsense of forcing Microsoft to offer a Media Player-free version that no-one bought shows that. Consumers don't want to buy their car and then its accessories; they want the finished package.
In reply to: "The big disadvantage of Microsoft monopoly is that it is prolonging the life of outdated PC technology, based on the 30+ year-old IBM-AT, and stultifying the development of radical new and innovative solutions to business/home computing" [#27]
* 37.
* At 11:44 AM on 19 Sep 2007,
* Mirek Kondracki wrote:
"That's simply not true. The real reason is that HARDWARE, specifically microprocessors' and chipsets' producers want to remain backward (excuse the pun) compatible in order not to loose a share of existing market."
Actually, one might also ask why Intel based (IBM-PC) systems dominate the chip market. Motorola chips had far less backward compatability problems and were easilly upgraded. They were used in the cruise rocket, Atarai, Amiga, Apple computers -and Motorola, together with IBM, produced the earlier versions of the (Apple) Power PC, risk system. Motorola had a good interupt system -essential to time sharing (linux is basically a translation to Intel system of Unix type systems -which even ran on (8-16 bits) Motorola processor before Intel became so popular).
Consumer ignorance is the answer: People use MS (and Intel) because they are poorly informed about alternatives. Publicity and not performance is what sells in a consumerist indoctrinated society.
It's amazing how quick the Americans go on the defensive and think they are being attacked. So stop waving your flags and constitutions around and relax. We don't want any "friendly fire" in here.
Everything that I wanted to say about Microsoft has been said.
And whoever said you can easily uninstall IE, Windows Media Player and Notepad obviously has no clue what he's talking about. IE is an integrated part of the OS, therefore you can't uninstall it. Infact you show me anywhere in the add/remove programs panel where you can uninstall these products! I bet you cant.
Now, I wouldn't say Windows is my OS of choice, because there really is no other OS (at least that I know of) that is good for playing games on, unless you want to get some kind of Windows emulator for Linux. I think MS are shoddy and I'll use alternatives wherever Possible (Firefox, OpenOffice, Winamp, iTunes, DIVX, VideoLAN). MS are too lazy and too complacent, fact!
"No, Boing does not have to reveal any technological secrets to Airbus - no need for that as Airbus is technologically in front of Boeing."
[42]
Could you perhaps reveal fascinating details of that technological advantage?
And be specific, please?
Because I don't think you refer to stealth capabilities of A-350 (nobody inded has seen this plane so far).
Wake up people, especially the ones complaining about and accusing Europe. No one's trying to bring Microsoft to the ground. Give everyone else with some common sense a break.
How would you all feel if you went on to buy a Chevy only to find out that you can only fill it with Texaco fuel cause every other brand is incompatible with your car?
I use Windows myself. However this doesn't negate the fact that Microsoft has tried to force in some cases the IT world to select its products because otherwise they would lose out on business due to IT compatibility issues with other systems.
This also applies to any company that exercises similar practices. It's not about the GREAT US Nation. Please!!!
As for all of you who rush to accuse Europe and Europeans, I suggest you take a look back at your history books. If it wasn't for us Europeans, the US state wouldn't be the superpower it is today. In case you have forgotten, it was Europeans that migrated over at your beloved lands in the first place and wether you like it or not, you all descend from European blood. Also, take a look at the major companies over at your precious country and see how many foreigners, NON AMERICAN scientists thrive over there to give you first all the technological innovations etc.
Get your faces off your Big Macs and start using the most precious thing that nature has given you... your brain!!! On the other hand though, you must be too busy living in your own special world. God bless Uncle Sam...NOT!!!
The fines imposed by the EU should be higher so Microsoft really takes notice.