RSS
Twitter
EU Threatens Microsoft With More Fines
from the send-us-an-invoice dept
The EU says Microsoft isn't fully complying with the 2004 antitrust ruling against it, and will start fining the company 2 million euros a day unless it supplies better documentation for other companies to make their products compatible with Windows. Microsoft is in the process of appealing the antitrust decision, and, of course, disagrees with the antitrust commission's latest view of things. The EU's said before that Microsoft wasn't complying with the ruling, and it doesn't seem likely that the prospect of having to pay 2 million euros a day will significantly change the company's behavior, given how it's shrugged off previous fines, and, as predicted, dragged out the process to minimize its impact on the company.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Microsoft getting screwed? Hey left foot, meet rig
I think the irony of this is delicious, but it's still wrong of the EU to do such an unethical thing to Microshaft (He's a complicated app and no one understands him but his OS...), just as it would be to do to any company.
It basically violates my whole mode of thinking to say anything for Microsoft, but this is just one case where it's just wrong to screw them, as it's bad for everyone else.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Microsoft getting screwed? Hey left foot, meet
The impression I got from the BBC story was that MS fulfilled their promise to provide documentation to allow full compatibility with non-Windows OS computers on a network (eg. publish API documentation), but the courts ruled that the documentation provided were so shoddy that they were of no use to a third party developer.
I do think MS needs to be taken down a notch, and I think once they start playing with the industry instead of above it, they might see things work out pretty well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What about other OS's???
Whoa... can they really do that? On what grounds can ANY government tell ANY company to do ANYTHING with their products (unless it is SOLELY for a government contract). This does not make any sense to me. If they wanted full interoperability within their network, then stick to a single operating system, whether it is Linux, OS X, or Windows. If MS has to provide documentation to assist in interoperability, then shouldn't Linux and OS X be required to do as well? Why single out one company?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about other OS's???
because as soon as you're #1 the rules chage...
microsoft didn't trick me into using windows by doing anything illegal.. I made a conscious choice to use it..
I've tried other things but windows is just such a nicely polished turd that always came back it to..
all these people complaining about a monopoly just want to see the piss taken out of them pure and simple
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about other OS's???
That's what I thought. It's rather unethical to target a single company when others are in the same boat (Apple, for example, is really difficult to interoperate in many circumstances). I really think that this shouldn't attack one company if others are guilty of the same charges.
I doubt there'd be as much "well that's fine, charge them 2.4M Euros, they can afford it" if it were applied to certain distros of *nix platforms.
Again, it's a matter of "Left foot, meet right shoe" for microsoft, they're getting screwed for having done everything that was asked of them (Hell, accurate, though highly technical interoperability documentation is available from the MSDN library).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about other OS's???
The documentation listed in MSDN library is not targeted for other systems, rather only for WIndows OS that support WMI. Now, if MS opens WMI to allow support from different systems, then wouldn't that also create another vulnerability in the Windows OS?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about other OS's???
What doesn't create vulnerabilities in the MSOS's?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Only one reason
There's only 1 reason I use Windows and that's games. If game developers started making games for Linux I'd be off Microsoft in a second. Linux is a more stable OS and supports almost all the same productivity software Windows does. Personally I believe in GNU. It's a much better way to promote innovation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Microsoft has to pay RealNetworks 1 billion in royalties for including windows media player with their OS. Mean while Apple with their QuickTime media player is left untouched. Now this... EU is just a bad idea that has to much power.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Anyone who supports this decision has absolutely no right to complain about high license fees. I hope they milk the EU countries dry for licensing fees now and then sue the crap out of them for pirated copies. Cause meet Effect.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
MS had reserves of over US$49b in 2003.
MS makes >40% profit overall its operations.< BR>MS makes >80% profit on Windows OS...
If MS keeps delaying this case, as it is attempting, then the settlement will be irrelevant as the compeditors will have gone. Standard MS OP.
This shows that the EU finally stopped squabbling amongst themselves long enough to realise that the EU is now the largest market place in the world and as such can dictate terms to even MS. Something the US congress seems unable or unwilling to do.
"a hostile act against an American company with severe consequences for the global economy," Rep. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
"based on protectionist policy, not on sound economic principles." Rep. Adam Smith of Washington
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment