Post #148,113
3/24/04 10:22:49 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
European Union Issues Strict New Ruling on Microsoft
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/business/24CND-SOFT.html?hp|European Union Issues Strict New Ruling on Microsoft]
"The ruling, anticipated for more than a week, assesses a $613 million fine (497.2 million euros). It also orders Microsoft to sell two versions of its Windows operating system to manufacturers of personal computers such as Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Fujitsu Siemens. One version must remove Microsoft's audio-video playing software, called Media Player. The ruling ordered the company to produce the alternate version within 90 days."
Do you think this will affect Microsoft or will they just shrug it off?
|
Post #148,135
3/24/04 11:22:16 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I think that they'll comply but...
I'm still wondering on the odds that they'll make the second version unbootable.
Or that it will have realplayer there, and continuing to randomly pop-up, but just not activated by default.
Cheers, Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #148,183
3/24/04 1:47:32 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Re: I think that they'll comply but...
If the do any fo that, they're in trouble. From [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36496.html|El Reg] The interesting part of the remedy therefore has to be the requirement to "refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing." The Europeans, not being the panderers to Big Bizniss\ufffd that this country's "administration" is, isn't likely to sit still for such shenanigans.
jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #148,215
3/24/04 4:39:37 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
And Microsoft always does what they are told, right?
Ship the version with it in, but disabled. Have it un-disable sporadically. When told that they are breaking the agreement, complain, But WMP is part of the operating system. We can't really remove it without breaking the machine. We do our best to hide it from the user. The disabled version is, other that the missing functionality, not worse than the usual version...
Maybe this will fly, maybe it won't. But Microsoft has decades of experience fighting anti-trust rulings in exactly this matter, why change a winning strategy? (And IIRC, they have used this kind of technique in the EU before. About 10 years ago, in fact.)
Cheers, Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #148,151
3/24/04 12:13:27 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Microsoft: EU fight could last until 2009
[link|http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,91591,00.html?from=homeheads|Microsoft: EU fight could last until 2009]
" Microsoft Corp. will appeal the fine and sanctions imposed on it by the European Commission, a process that could keep the battle rumbling until 2009, Brad Smith, the company's senior vice president and general counsel, said in a conference call shortly after the commission's decision was announced."
2009 is so far away in technology terms that it renders the EU decision absolutely meaningless.
|
Post #148,167
3/24/04 1:03:09 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
That's the idea.
As in the US, MS will appeal and delay and so forth until the remedy is meaningless. That's their MO.
What I don't understand is, if the bundling if Media Player with Windows is an illegal action under MS's monopoly, why is the remedy a small fine and requiring MS to offer a version of Windows without it while at the same time permitting them to continue to sell the bundled version? Shouldn't they require MS to strip MP out of Windows?
As long as Gates and the present management control MS, nothing is going to constrain MS's behavior WRT bundling. Piddly fines that can be appealed mean nothing to them. A reasonable solution, if carefully done, is to break up the company. How to do it is a difficult problem though....
Or declare Windows and Office a "public utility" or whatever the proper term is...
IMHO.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #148,205
3/24/04 3:52:50 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Economist says it could be ineffectual. 44kB .gif
[link|http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2535519|The Economist] story: [image|http://www.economist.com/images/ga/2004w13/Microsoft.gif|0|Antitrust Timeline in US and EU|334|588] But even if the EU is successful in setting a legal precedent, will it have any practical effect in the market? The requirement that Microsoft open access to its interoperability code will apply only to Windows 2000, not to the more recent Windows XP, which is being dealt with in a separate case. As for media players, even if Microsoft does offer cheaper, stripped-down versions of Windows, will PC-makers want them? Even a discount of, say, $10\ufffda substantial cut in Microsoft\ufffds average package price of around $50\ufffdwould barely make a dent in the $1,000 cost of the average PC. And European consumers might feel that they are being offered a second-class product. When offered a choice between Windows with and without Internet Explorer after the American settlement, few PC-makers went without.
Most important of all is what the ruling will mean for Microsoft's plans to conquer yet more markets. The company is believed to be integrating an internet search facility like Google (which Bill Gates greatly admires) into its new version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn. The European Commission has not specifically banned any further bundling\ufffdit says this will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps this week's ruling will prove strong enough to stop Microsoft from tying its products to Windows in order to storm new markets. But if the past is a guide, that seems unlikely. And with the appeal process set to last for years, it is hard to see Microsoft being swayed from its usual strategy: bundle now, litigate later. Yup. It's not going to change MS's behavior. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #148,180
3/24/04 1:42:45 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
This is the ruling WE should have gotten...
...and would have, had we not been held hostage to hanging chads...
(Yeah...I know, I know,...and BeeP will be the first, no doubt, to point out...that we would have probably had this travesty of (the Dept. of) Justice even if Scalia et al had not shot themselves in the proverbial foot. Still, one savors the thought of how things might have been if 538 more Democratic Florida votes were to have been found. And now, at least in this particular case, we'll get to find out!)
jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #148,195
3/24/04 3:07:51 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
This got prime time coverage in Australia
Fined for exercising a 'virtual monopoly'
Doug M
|