|
|
| MS and EU Commission Fail to Settle |
 |
|
Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST
|
Forbes has the news and a chart showing prior actions involving Microsoft going back to 1994. 1997 is an interesting year. CNet has more details: "Microsoft's last-ditch talks aimed at reaching a settlement with the European Union and avoiding antitrust action have failed, paving the way for a landmark legal ruling next week. "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had flown in earlier this week for talks with EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti. But those talks collapsed Thursday, and Monti said in a statement that the two sides had failed to agree on commitments for Microsoft's future business practices.
"'A settlement to the Microsoft case has not been possible,' Monti said. 'In the end, I had to decide what was best for competition and consumers in Europe. I believe they will be better served with a decision that creates a strong precedent. It is essential to have a precedent which will establish clear principles for the future conduct of a company with such a strong dominant position in the market. '" Imagine that? Caring about consumers' best interests? This is stunning news. The EU Commission will issue its ruling on March 24.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tintak on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:07 PM EST |
I expect that the US government will take a dim view of the EU actions, and try
to soften any sanctions.
Still business is business:^)
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST |
Personally, I'd much rather see the European Commission deal
with microsoft's monopoly by not giving them 20-year monopolies
in the first place. The same european commission and the
european council have been trying HARD to get Software Patents
passed in europe, despite the European parliament voting
against them. It's stupid to "punish" microsoft with a slap on the
wrist from the left hand (people aren't magically going to _stop_
using WMA or IE due to a ruling handed down by the EC), while the
right hand is giving microsoft 20 year government-enforced
monopolies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MS and EU Commission Fail to Settle - Software Patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST
- MS and EU Commission Fail to Settle - Software Patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 08:20 PM EST
- Microsoft MONOPOLY money = MS patents, MS code, MS advertising, etc - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 08:21 PM EST
- Don't forget the Parliament - Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST
- It's not about the mediaplayer - Authored by: NemesisNL on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 03:32 AM EST
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 10:03 AM EST
- Please sign Eurolinux Petition against Software Patents in Europe! - Authored by: ccs on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST
- MS and EU Commission Fail to Settle - Software Patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 10:49 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST |
Anyone care to bet on the chances of Mario Monti suffering extreme acute
political problems, and being replaced by someone more to Microsoft's liking?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
I find it hard to believe that MS would be shocked at this. With all they have
been doing over the last few years I would expect that they knew it was coming.
It is a real shame that the US could not have had the political spine that the
EU is apparently showing. If they had, MS would not be as much of a threat to
the software industry as they are now.
It tends to taint my trust in the any govt. to see them think so little about
the citizen they are supposed to represent.
Govt. of the people, by the rich, for the rich, comes to mind.
The old axiom "money talks" may well be true in American, but perhaps
it is not so strong in the EU.
Well here's hoping anyway. :)
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST |
About time this happened. First, the EU did not buckle under and just pat MS's
wrist as is my perception on the farcical legal 'penalties' imposed by the USA
legal system; second, contrary to the implication of an earlier comment on this
topic, I think there is very little possibility of the EU doing a political
grovel under USA pressure.....they KNOW what Microsoft is doing there (and here
in Australia as well) and any monopoly is destructive to innovation and free
will. Any Linux devotee knows that.
---
Blackbutt, Australia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
The next day after this goes through, "XP reloaded" comes out and it
becomes a mute point because this settlement will only effect XP and earlier
versions of windows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST |
What is required beyond fines at a level that will be a deterrent, is a
permanent watch with the power to investigate complaints and take
immediate action to fine of suspend Microsoft products (in the same
way Lindows was suspended in the Benelux countries) on findings of
anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft. The restrictions (terms of
probation) and punishment on breaking these terms should be
determined now, and more broadly than just the issues considered so
far, so that if Microsoft breaks these terms, punishment is immediate.
The problem so far, has been that the courts are too slow, allowing
Microsoft to put competitors out of business before court cases can
deliver justice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST |
| Will it embarass the DOJ into doing it's job ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST |
This morning there was a news article on BBC Radio saying that MS was adding
support for a number of minority languages to Windows. They focused on Welsh as
it is a UK language.
I have no problem with the fact that the report was generally positive about MS,
as they are doing a good thing in this case, but I felt it was unballanced to
fail to point out that other desktop environments have trumped MS by supporting
an even larger number of minority languages for a long while now. I also
wondered whether it was really worthy of UK national news. Welsh news,
certainly, but not very many people outside Wales care about Welsh.
I then wondered if this story was being pushed by MS at this time as a way to
say "Look how good we are to you Europeans. How can you fine us when we do
so many nice things for you?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST |
Don't rejoice too soon. We still don't know what will happen within the next
days. Mario Monti's a tough guy in questions concerning competition but he was
stopped recently by the the European Court in his policy.
Steve Ballmer already announced a statement
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/mar04/03-18EC_NPR.asp that sounds
like a threat: "We worked very hard to try to resolve these issues without
litigation". This would mean they are prepared for a lawsuit and everybody
knows they are experts in dragging out suits. Even if this is not such easy in
Europe, they may still play for time. Time enough to present a new version of
Windows, new licensing schemes, new interfaces and who knows what else. Rulings
of the European court will probably obsolete at this time.
---
C.S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jeff on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:07 PM EST |
I have no problem with a company providing a Web Browser, an E-Mail Client,
or Media Software in the default install of their OS. Where I have a problem
with it is when the installation of said middleware is mandatory because it
forces me to install software I may not want or need. Even Apple does this,
forcing me to install Quicktime, Safari, and Mail.
All OS vendors need to give the user more options on what is installed, even
if being able to do choose is not the default mode. I just want the capability.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greg on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:59 PM EST |
This is the final revelation that I think
we all can agree.
How does the customer benefit?
When setting up a "free market" system
it is critical that the players play by
rules that allow the "invisible hand" to
make products or services benefit the
overall production of services or products.
The invention of computers will have forever
changed the world in how people live
and do business.
The concept that a single operating system
would eventually have to be standardized
within the world markets was never on people's
minds. Within a "Free Market" it would not
simply be possible.
But yet we have it here that a "closed system"
operating system company is behaving poorly.
Is that the result of the market?
No it is the result of using the mechanisms
within the market and the need for many
people to standardize on a cheap and consistent
method of computing.
Therefore, with the misguided market mechanisms by
the closed system company. The closed system
concepts allows the controlling company to dictate
the rate and direction of product delivery and
product evolution.
In short, there must only be one system that
can capitalize on the efficeincies of that system.
And there are two choices.
Open Source and Closed Source.
It is now clear, as the overall power of the
Closed Systems increases as businesses choose
a perceived cost efficiency. The businesses and
consumers LOCK them selves into a system that
can force Marketing and Market mechanisms that
are not prudent for a common business plan
or the common individual.
It is now clear that the Open Source mechanisms
that create a CORE operating system, allows
those that directly benefit from that common
platform in forms of quality and choices.
There is no potential for Open Source to
favor any group or partner. No potential for
that Open Source group to keep changing the
underlying implementations such that their
direct competition cannot keep up with the
most efficient implementations of functionality.
Around 1990 Microsoft had a choice.
Either continue this effort within the Closed System.
Or to split the company into a Operating System
group and a products group.
It is a funny thing that emotion called Greed.
Has MS provided much innovation? Yes of Course.
But we cannot say that other closed systems
would not have provided as much or more...
Apple, OS2, etc.
It was the business methods and clear drive
of the MS marketing and sales team.
The size and overall strength has grown to
the point that, in order to survive, they
must control the market. The problems with
being a monopoly that is gigantic is that
you forget why you exist. And you begin
to devise methods to keep growth growing.
This is where the "invisible hand" comes into play.
You have lost sight of your end user's
needs and desires. You have entered the world
of expected cash flow instead of earned cash flow.
So the "invisible hand" will come down and
moves the money streams that are headed in
your(MS) direction and now sends them down the
direction of other groups that have not
lost sight of their purpose.
There is a VERY viable business model with
Open Source. And in these times of struggle
the winner will always be the consumer and
corporate customer.
It has to be this way.
Business models DO NOT EXIST for businesses.
Business models exist for servicing customers.
Thanks
Greg
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST |
Fear not.
In a stunning turn of events, the new electronic voting
machines in
Florida and elsewhere will hand Bush the presidency of the EU. He
will then
install a crack new 'Homeland Justice' team that's first priority
will be to undo
this fiasco for MS. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 11:37 PM EST |
A
plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive
tactics.
An open letter to antitrust, competition, consumer and trade
practice monitoring agency officials worldwide.
The
role of trade
practice and antitrust legislation is to provide the
consumer with protection
from abusive business practices and
monopolies. In one of the most serous cases
of monopolization in the
information technology industry, the agencies charged
with protecting
the competitive process and the consumer have utterly failed to
stem
the offending corporation's anti-competitive practices.
The
Microsoft corporation has been under continuous investigation
by
antitrust policing agencies since 1989. Despite this scrutiny, the
Microsoft
corporation, using covert and overt anti-competitive business
tactics, has
maintained an unabated campaign against alternatives to
Microsoft Windows
operating system platforms and Microsoft
applications.
For years the
Microsoft corporation has earned
around 70% to 80% net profit from sales of its
operating systems and
application software. Only in areas like Thailand where
Linux on the
desktop has just begun to gain a foothold has Microsoft stated that
it
will release versions of its operating system platform and
application
software at a lower price to Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs)
and
retail consumers than is available in the rest of the modern
world.
Consumers benefit where real competition exists.
The
world
desktop operating system market remains predominantly monopolized
by
Microsoft. Over the last decade, Microsoft continued to lever its
desktop
platform monopoly to the point where it now holds a dominant
position worldwide
in the application office suite and web browser
software markets. On its own,
the current USA Department Of Justice
(DOJ) settlement with the Microsoft
corporation has failed to bring
about any restoration of serous competition to
the desktop operating
system market. Microsoft continues to use similar
anti-competitive
business tactics in an attempt to monopolize the digital media
player
and the desktop services server markets. Competing vendors
increasingly
find that they can no longer compete with Microsoft if they
limit
themselves to only the traditional closed source model of
software
development.
In the last six years information
technology
vendors have adopted techniques and resources from two
existing
movements geared toward the construction of software. The newer
open
source movement, represented by the non-profit Open Source Initiative
(OSI)
corporation, emphasizes the licensing of software in a manner
which encourages
its collaborative development in an open environment.
The older free software
movement, represented by the non-profit Free
Software Foundation (FSF), focuses
on the ethical issues surrounding
the licensing of software. The free software
movement emphasizes
freedoms which are often taken for granted outside of the
field of
software: the freedom to use, study how something works, improve
or
adapt it and redistribute.
The Free Software Foundation offers
two
software license schemes which are compatible with their own goals
and those of
the Open Source Initiative: The GNU General Public License
(GPL) and the GNU
Library General Public License (LGPL). Essentially,
the GPL and LGPL licenses
grant the recipient extra rights than that
granted by copyright law. Both
licenses insure that a contributer or
distributer of a GPL or LGPL licensed work
may not further impede
downstream recipients the rights granted by the same
license. Many
developing software in an open source manner have realized that
this
benefit offered by the GPL and LGPL licenses outweigh any potential
losses.
The licensing also insures that no contributing or distributing
vendor or group
of vendors could potentially monopolize the market,
insuring that real market
competition dictates price. Just as the
automotive industry can commonize on
standards for the production of
the mechanisms of seats, instrument panels and
doors while providing
brand and regional differentiation across a wide array of
models, the
information technology community can collaboratively develop
works
under free licenses. Both vendors and consumers benefit from the
resulting
development cost reductions and competition from use of the
resulting
commons.
The Linux operating system and many other
opens source and free
applications have been developed in an open
source manner under free license
terms. Despite free licensing and open
source licensing requiring that the
source code is freely available
there are numerous profitable business models.
Vendors can offer
proprietary software for open source platforms and/or take a
hybrid
approach dual licensing the development of software. Vendors can
select,
customizing and configure free software, offering the bundled
result. Vendors
can offer support services. Vendors can also offer
hardware which runs the
freely available software. The resulting
collection of hardware, software and
services has been widely deployed
as a server operating environment. Many
vendors, from small one person
operators to large multinational conglomerates,
now compete to provide
goods and services for the resulting platform. Linux has
restored true
free market competition to the server arena.
Linux can
provide
just as capable a desktop platform, however Linux adoption in this
area
faces barriers resulting from Microsoft's anti-competitive
tactics.
Interoperation with Microsoft products is difficult while
Microsoft
continues to embrace and extend protocols developed in an open
source
manner, and along with Microsoft developed protocols and file
formats,
license the result in a manner unacceptable to competing vendors.
In
the field of digital media, Microsoft does not make its media player
codecs
available to the Linux platform. Despite the US DOJ settlement
requirements for
Microsoft's contracts with Original Equipment
Manufactures (OEMs), Microsoft's
current relationship with major OEM
dealers requires OEMs to sell consumers
personal computers with an
operating system, in many cases requiring consumers
wanting to replace
Microsoft's operating system with Linux to go though a
difficult refund
process. Above and beyond the issues of interoperation and
OEMs,
customer perception is one of the greatest barriers to Linux adoption
on
the desktop.
The Microsoft corporation has maintained an
unabated
campaign against any and all competition to Microsoft's own
products. The most
significant common denominator to this ongoing
campaign is the dissemination of
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, commonly
referred to in the information technology
sector by the acronym FUD.
While it is fair to point out relative deficiencies
in competing
vendors products or services, Microsoft corporation CEOs and agents
of
Microsoft have too often crossed the line by participating in
the
dissemination of outright untruthful statements. Refuting false
allegations
and incorrect assertions requires a significant effort,
especially when
previously refuted falsehoods are recycled and repeated
as fact. Following the
resulting arguments can require some technical
knowledge, however in the last
few years many of the more outrageously
untrue statements in Microsoft's
propaganda have backfired strongly
enough to show up in Microsoft's own market
research as a problem.
It
now appears that Microsoft has chosen to
escalate this disinformation
campaign by actively participating in a situation
to discredit the
viability of the Linux platform and raise uncertainty to the
cost of
the Linux platform, manufacturing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
The
SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently
flawed
lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the
Linux
operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa
Cruz
Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing
software
developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of
the
GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward
any
sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the
GPL
license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which
regularly
conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing,
press and public
statements, raises serous questions which can no
longer be explained away by a
lack of competence in either the SCO
Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal
representation.
There is
now increasing evidence that Microsoft has been
indirectly financing --
to the point of sustaining -- the SCO Group's campaign
against Linux.
Disclosed internal email memos back up by recent filings to the
US
Securities and Exchange Commission indicate that at least a third of
SCO's
entire market capitalization, and their entire current cash
reserve, is payoffs
funnelled from Microsoft.
The relationship
between Microsoft, the SCO
Group and the SCO Group's recent financial
backers requires immediate
investigation by all agencies entrusted with
providing the consumer with
protection from abusive business practices
and monopolies.
The adoption
of Linux on the desktop offers an
opportunity to restore competition to the
desktop market. The resulting
freeing up by natural market forces will open up
opportunities for
vendors beyond Linux, open source and free licensed software
vendors.
Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics raise further
barriers
which the consumer should not have to continue to face. Trade
practice
and antitrust legislation exist to provide the consumer with
protection
from abusive business practices and monopolies. We ask that
agencies
and officials entrusted with providing the consumer with protection
act
according to the intent of that legislation.
Copyright ©
David
Mohring, 2004 : Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in
any
medium, provided this notice is preserved.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST |
Updates, News, URLs Here pls.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:53 AM EST |
I've been recently trying out the "wordplay" anagram tool on linux.
It's fun.
I tried Microsoft. One of the results was:
COMFORT IS
Really quite poetic, that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 08:03 AM EST |
This is long, long overdue. I am saddened several times a week to think of all
the innovative people who took ideas, created code, developed a program, got it
to freeware, then shrink-wrapped and establish a marketing chain, got the
product reviewed and on store shelves, only to find one day like Lotus,
WordPerfect, Netscape,Street Atlas, Quicken, Stac, and many many more that
Microsoft has forced PC manufacturers to intall their Microsoft version
pre-loaded on every PC at "? no cost". How did these vendors compete
with their product on store shelves against the free pre-load from the PC
vendors of Microsoft products. Why do disk compression, browsers, music,
video, mail all have to be a integral part of Microsoft's WIN xxx operating
system?
Finally someone,the EU- all 15 countries, has said your not a little kid anymore
and can't just grab everyone elses toys as your own.
Yes there's not many days go buy that I'm not saddened by Microsoft's stealing
other people's ideas and products and using anti-competitive marketing tactics
to put all these good people out of business.
Maybe free Linux will finally reverse Microsoft's free software and puts them in
the position they put so many people and companies in.
k king[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST |
The German Handelsblatt has a column in todays News on Page 11 ( Opinion &
Analysis) about the EU vs Microsoft Case. The article can be escribed as 'Only
Microsoft is able to create proper software and corresponding markets'
Anyhow - one word stuck out: 'Linux-Pirates'. (..... Mario Monti .... the hero
of all Linux-Pirates ......)
Sorry, I have no translation of the article.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 11:02 AM EST |
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/districts/fourth/MicrosoftTrial/Plaintiff/
Has been filling up with email scans, this inside the MS Corporate view is
really intriguing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 09:46 PM EST |
Personally, I hope the EC does what our government lacks the stones to do and
sticks them with sanctions that take their collective breath away.
Anybody want to stand up and say this isn't polictical? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST |
No one doubts that Microsoft uses its Windows platform as a monopoly
consolidator and monopoly extender. Many third-party vendors such as Netscape,
Real Player, Oracle have discovered for themselves the perils of being too
successful on the Windows platform. This is why any sane third-party vendor
would port on the Linux platform - I believe that the Linux platform is well
accepted at the server end, and is poised for greatness at the desktop end.
Assuming that third-party vendors do the sane thing, most commercial innovation
will occur on the Linux rather than the Windows platform. In time, Microsoft
will realize on its own that its behavior is self-destructive and will change it
to survive. I just don't see why both American and EU taxpayers should expend so
many resources to compel Microsoft to act in its own enlightened self-interest.
It's almost as if both American and EU regulatory agencies are hell-bent on
coddling Microsoft and bending over backward to save Microsoft from itself in
spite of itself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 10:54 AM EST |
Gibberish reply, that. And a trace of American nationalist arrogance? How
apropos.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
