|
|
| Microsoft Wins Two-Month Breather on EU Sanctions |
 |
|
Monday, June 28 2004 @ 05:58 AM EDT
|
The European Union has granted Microsoft's request, filed on Friday, to put sanctions on hold while the company gets a chance to present evidence that the particular sanctions would irreparably harm them and that they couldn't be made whole at the end of the appeals process. It is predicted by EU spokeswoman, Amelia Torres, that it will take about 2 months for this matter to be heard. Sanctions were supposed to go into effect today. If they persuade the court, then sanctions could be put on further hold while the appeals process goes on, something that could take a couple of years. Unfortunately, legal documents in EU courts are not made public, according to the Washington Post's Jonathan Krim's account [reg req] and Declan McCullagh's on ZDNet. This doesn't seem to be a signal that the commission is changing its mind.
Here's a statement from Mario Monti, from the eWeek report: "EU antitrust chief Mario Monti signaled he was not backing down.
"'The Commission believes that the remedies are reasonable, balanced and necessary to restore competition in the marketplace and that there is a strong public interest in favor of implementing them without waiting for the judgment on the substance of the case,' the EU head office said in a statement.
"It said it agreed to a temporary lifting of the order only 'in the interest of a proper administration of justice.'"
It's not unusual for a defendant to be given a breather while there is an appeal of an aspect of a ruling in such a circumstance, and this ruling can be appealed to the European Court of Justice, the highest EU court, kind of like our Supreme Court, by the Microsoft opponents too, for that matter, although I haven't heard that they are. If you think about it, putting yourself in the place of the defendant, it's what you'd want for yourself if you thought the court had made a mistake and you wanted a chance to be heard. What Microsoft reportedly asked for was two delays: the one they have been granted, which they filed on Friday night, and also a long-term delay of sanctions, asking the court to let them do business as usual while the appeals process works its pokey way through the courts, which they filed on June 8. What they were granted was the former, and a chance to prove they need the latter. They haven't been let off the hook, though you will see articles saying that. Think of it as the warden granting a temporary reprieve while the court makes sure they really want to electrocute the prisoner. Microsoft filed new information with the court: "Microsoft's filing also includes new data on the digital-media marketplace. It notes that Apple's iTunes European music service, which debuted June 15, sold 800,000 songs in its first week.
"Microsoft also submitted reports showing that every large PC manufacturer in Europe and the United States bundles competing media players with their machines — including RealNetworks.
"Smith also noted that U.S. antitrust sanctions are having an effect. Taking advantage of a provision that enabled PC makers to customize Windows, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Gateway and IBM have all made Musicmatch's competing media player the default player on their machines, he said." If any of that proves true, and bear in mind that RealNetworks and others have asked to be heard on the matter and can be expected to argue that it doesn't hurt any company to abide by antitrust law, then it might influence the court to ease up a bit, on the grounds that the market is already dealing with the antitrust issues. Of course, that is what Microsoft hopes they will conclude. But what they have to prove is that it has a prima facie case in law, meaning they can make a reasonable case, and that it would suffer "serious and irreparable harm". The part that really seems to be bothering them, aside from the Media Player sanction, is the sharing of proprietary interoperability information rival server makers need to compete with them according to Reuters: "'Once Microsoft releases code under this decision, those intellectual property rights are lost forever, even if the court grants our appeal,' the company said." The EU decision is here [PDF] if you wish to review it. Microsoft's statement is here and it no doubt reflects pretty much what they will argue to the court, except it will be in legalese: "The Commission’s case seeks to create new law that would chill innovation and economic growth. This new law is untested and it is prudent that the Commission’s remedies be put on hold until the new legal principles have been fully assessed by the Court. The sweeping nature of the proposed sanctions reinforces this point. Once Microsoft releases software code under this decision, those intellectual property rights are lost forever, even if the Court grants our appeal. And once Microsoft releases a degraded product without media functionality into the market, you cannot pull the product back. Once IP is published and once products are released, they cannot be taken back." If you are interested in the PDF longer version of their reaction to the EU decision, here it is.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MathFox on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
So that they don't get lost in the other comments.
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
| I see no reasons why the order that Microsoft should provide Windows versions
without Media Player should be stayed. Microsoft will not be irreparably harmed
by creating "yet another" variant of Windows, they just baptised their Thai
"XP-Lite" and they should technically be able to produce an European
"Windows-Lite". It will cost them some money, but that can be refunded. No fear
of bankrupcy on the MS side because of this.
Off course Microsoft will ask
for a stay of the unbundling order (I'ld like to hear their arguments), but they
should argue very carefully here. The main case still accuses that MS bundling
destroys competition. ---
When people start to comment on the form of the
message, it is a sign that they have problems to accept the truth of the
message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 06:38 AM EDT |
This is may be no more than a tactic by the court to prove that they took
everything into consideration, so that on appeal Microsoft won't be able to say
"They didn't listen to us."
It's only 2 months - let's wait and see.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moonbroth on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
| Because it's nice to keep everything together. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moonbroth on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:04 AM EDT |
| Because you *know* you belong here, really you do! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
And once Microsoft releases a degraded product ... into the market,
you
cannot pull the product back.
Funny, that doesn't seem to have
slowed them down much in the past. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
They just started unbundling in Thailand so how the heck
can they defend any argument against that? The fine is
nothing to them either, so I doubt they will get anywhere
other than waste the EU's time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Perjury? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
There is something that has always bugged me, a little bit, about the anti-trust
remedies in the Government and State v Microsoft cases
It seems to me that the anti-trust failings of MS are, while certainly in part
an offense against particular MS competitors. are best characterized, at least
in government cases (EU, DoJ, etc), as an offense against the whole market and
whole community.
What bugs me is the proposed remedies for an offense against the whole market or
whole community (i.e. in government cases). are often laid out in terms which
focus on specific MS competitors, e.g. to restore a level playing field to Real
or Netscape or require MS to license network protocols, or media player info, or
whatever to certain competitors. Even if this focus on only certain MS
competitors is never explicitly stated in any ruling, it's still present by the
very fact that remedies are chosen on the basis of helping particular MS
competitors who suffered (e.g. a $100K license to MS network protocols is going
to help certain big MS competitors, but does it help anybody else?)
I don't have an objection to Netscape or Real or whoever from seeking remedies
which are about their specific issues, and are aimed at restoring whatever they
think that they lost as a result of MS's behaviour
However I think government generally ought to be seeking remedies which are
aimed at restoring the balance to the whole market and whole community, covering
MS competitors both known and unknown - rather than attempt to fix it for
certain specific MS competitors who are known to have suffered.
I'm far from sure how to fix this issue (especially in the current environment
where it appears to be taken as a given that MS would not be split), but I'd
like to see it addressed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
Microsoft's attempts to fool the European Commission have to be worthy of an
International Prize for Creative Fiction, never mind being granted in the
European Court. How do they have the gall to believe they will get away with
this?
...Once Microsoft releases software code under this decision,
those intellectual property rights are lost forever, even if the Court grants
our appeal...Let's stop and think about this. Microsoft sells Operating
Systems. In order to allow Developers to write applications for their OS
Products, Microsoft have to release details of the API presented. In essence,
what they are saying is, "Once we have released details of our API, other
companies might be able to write software that can run on our OS!" Well
excuse me! Personally, I think it would be a much better idea if Microsoft
refused to publish any APIs, refused to release Visual Studio or other developer
toolkits and insisted that only MS software could run under Windows. If they
took this brave move, their franchise would last weeks, months at
best.
...once Microsoft releases a degraded product without media
functionality into the market, you cannot pull the product back...Microsoft
are world famous for shipping degraded products. Can anyone remember MS
releasing a major product in the last 5 years that has not required a Service
Pack? Microsoft rely on the ability to patch products after initial
release, purely because they don't have effective testing
capabilities.
What seems to be the case here is that Microsoft are now
being forced to deal with a different set of laws and a different regulator that
perhaps cannot be bribed as easily as some in the US. Suddenly they are not
happy. What a shame
Personally, I think that the European Union are prone to
meddling too much in the affairs of their citizens. For once, though, I support
the stand they are taking.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Pulp Fiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- Pulp Fiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Pulp Fiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 29 2004 @ 04:33 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
| "The Commission’s case seeks to create new law that would chill innovation and
economic growth...." I think that is exactly what the Criminal Monopoly has
been doing for the last 20 years. Where is the innovation? Some say that they
have hindered economic growth, in fact M$ Office has been directly blamed
for decreasing productivity. It is not good enough to take things like Real
Player or Netscape in isolation, M$ have been damaging anyone and everyone
that has to use their trash products for so long now that far more serious
action is necessary. A good starting place would be to allow class actions by
consumers who have purchased a defective product. The software industry has
always managed to escape this so far, at one time it was classed as an immature
industry (whereas in truth one of its supposed leaders is an immature
individual), so they get away with supplying trash. Anything else, consumers
would be able to get their purchase price refunded, if the product was not fit
for its intended purpose (security holes being a good example), and might be
able to claim damages if data had been lost or other undesirable consequences
had resulted. It is time that software was treated in the same way as any
other product, it has been established by a court case in the UK that software
is "goods", so a class action under the Sale of Goods Act should be sufficient
to wipe out M$ UK. With the billions Sir Bill allegedly spends on
"research", there can be no excuse for poor product quality. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
Once Microsoft releases software code under this decision, those
intellectual property rights are lost forever, even if the Court grants our
appeal.
Let's parse this. What kind of so-called intellectual
property is lost when it is released? Not copyright. Not patent. Not even
trademark. No, the only thing they can be talking about is trade secrets. So
let's see what they are really saying:
Once Microsoft releases
software code under this decision, those trade secrets are lost forever, even if
the Court grants our appeal.
Doesn't sound as respectable does
it? MS isn't trying to protect property, they are trying to hang on to secrets.
Secrets which can only exist to hamper competition. Which is exactly what the
commission objected to.
The real problem MS has with the GPL is that it
doesn't indulge trade secrets. MS doesn't have many patents (because it has not
invented much), doesn't trust copyright, and has such a shaky image that the
trademark is in danger of being worthless. Trade secrets and FUD are the only
things protecting it from competition. But WINE is attacking the trade secrets
and Groklaw is undermining the FUD. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
The EU asked MSFT to release the specifications for the interfaces. They made
no demand that MSFT actaully release the code implementing those
interfaces.
What I think MSFT is complaining about is that the EU wants them to release
the specifications to the public with no/minimum royalties. Basically, MSFT
would have to let people implement the interfaces with no fear of being sued
for patent issues.
Just think of what MSFT would lose:
1) Outlook-Exchange interface.
2) Office-Interchange(I'm not sure of the name; but Office 2K3 will work with
a server to allow easy exchange of infromation between people working on
the same project).
3) Active Directory
4) Most of the BackOffice suite.
What the EU wants is enough information released that a company/group can
build something like a Linux server that can look/behave just like a MSFT
Windows server. Just think, a server without a single MSFT program and
nothing on the PC would know that it wasn't a Windows server; this would
completely kill MSFT plans to take over the server market just like they did
the PC market.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
And once Microsoft releases a degraded product without media functionality
into the market, you cannot pull the product back
Wait a second,
we are talking about the champs of getting around the law. We all know that even
if forced to ship this product Microsoft will simply make the media player a
"Recommended" Update or slip links to its install with every product they ship.
That or slip it in a service pack. It will then self install and take over the
file types.
This is how they pushed IE at first.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
Judge: Tyrone, we will set bail for $100,000.
Tyrone: (Clicks fingers. Associates walk up to defendants bench with briefcase.
Opens case. Presents $100.000 to judge.)
Judge: (Jaw drops. Didn't expect this to happen.)
Tyrone: Thank you, your honor. Justice has been served. (Tip hat, walks pimp
style to go deal more drugs, or in other words, build a business.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jkondis on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
"It said it agreed to a temporary lifting of the order only 'in the
interest of a proper administration of justice.'"
Microsoft probably also wanted to introduce some newly faked video evidence. Or
is it going to be faked *audio* evidence this time?
---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
from Microsoft, that is:
"'Once Microsoft releases code under this decision, those intellectual
property rights are lost forever, even if the court grants our appeal,' the
company said."
Umm, "intellectual property rights" for the interface? Sounds
SCO-ish. To make code from any competitor work better on Windows? What is
Microsoft afraid of? Gates & Co. seem afraid of every shadow that they even
hear about.
No doubt those having seen "shared source" (Microsoft- speak for
"hybrid source"), and comparing it to the above, realize now that
they've been had. You not only can't really use shared- source, you can't even
be sure you won't be sued later over interfaces. Geeesh, what a bunch of
phonies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonomous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
| ...the particular sanctions would irreparably harm them and that they
couldn't be made whole at the end of the appeals process
Microsoft knows
all about irreperable harm that cannot be restituted at the end of a lengthy
judicial process. It is one of the biggest weapons in their
arsenal.
-Anonomous. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonomous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
| The Commission’s case seeks to create new law that would chill innovation and
economic growth.
We object, your honor. Chilling innovation and
economic growth is our job, and we respectfully direct the Commission's
attention to the fate of others who have tried to horn in on our
markets.
-Anonomous.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
Of course they would experience irreparable harm. They
would loose their
Monopoly status. I'd say that
constitutes irreparable harm.
Oh, wait a
second. They are convicted of the crime of
having a Monopoly status and using
it to harm competition.
Well... based on the crime and punishment, I for one
feel
the punishment might actually be a little lite in this
case.
A
stronger punishment both to the company as a whole
and the Board of Directors
that guides the company should
be put in place so other companies think thrice
before
they follow in the same footsteps. There's a point to
Capitalism and
making money, but let's face it, even
Capitalism has a level where you can
clearly identify
greed. Greed that harms humanity is what the lawmakers
should be protecting their voters from.
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
I thought punishments are intended to make harm, do i miss something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Here's your chance to line Billzilla's pockets with your own code (well, it
won't be your code)!
Link
--
-
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 29 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
To really put it to M$, IBM ought to put Lotus Smartsuite under the GLP. More
and better products to compete with them :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
