ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

EU hopes to decide on new fines against Microsoft by end of July

Time: 14:54 EST/19:54 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Andre Da Costa

BRUSSELS (AP) - The European Union head office said Tuesday it expects to make a decision by the end of July on whether to impose new fines on Microsoft Corp.. which faces a Wednesday deadline for complying with an earlier order aimed at assuring that rivals can compete to supply accessories for its Windows platform. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said EU antitrust regulators hoped to have a decision on new fines "before summer holidays. . . before the end of July."

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 329
Last | Next

The time now is 11:59:26 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 5/31/2005 5:56:57 PM

What union? They don't even have a constitution and one of their key proponents said NO! France's referendum overwhelmingly rejected the EU constitution over the weekend. Belguim is next to say NO!

Meanwhile, Airbus will be fueled with subsidies of over $1.75 billion dollars from the EU. The Europeans have some crazy ideas when it comes to competition.

This post was edited by jdhawk on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 at 23:28.

#2 By 9589 (66.56.132.28) at 5/31/2005 11:26:47 PM

Here is today's Wall Street Journal's thoughts on the matter . . .
Microsoft Pays and Pays
May 31, 2005

The European Union and Microsoft face a Wednesday deadline to agree on the Redmond, Washington software giant's compliance with a March 2004 order from the European Commission. If Microsoft cannot satisfy the commission by then -- and it seems unlikely that it can -- it faces the prospect of fines of as much as 5% of its daily turnover until the commission is made happy.

The commission doesn't like to hear that it acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in antitrust cases, but this is a prime example of the problem. The March 2004 order that Microsoft change some of its software and share other parts of its intellectual property with competitors was the product of a five-year investigation by the commission. At the end of that probe, the commission ruled in favor of itself, fined Microsoft �495 million (which the company has paid) and ordered the changes in Microsoft's software code (which Microsoft has made).

Some 15 months later, the commission remains unsatisfied, so it has threatened to cut off negotiations on how to comply with that order and to proceed with additional fines. The March 2004 decision is itself under appeal before the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, and could yet be overturned.

But never mind that; the commission's requirement that Microsoft sell a version of Windows without multimedia capabilities is turning out (predictably) to be a commercial bust, so the commission expects Microsoft to bail it out with discounts for the crippled version. The other side of the case, in which Microsoft was ordered to license some of its server-software code, has also fallen flat because Microsoft's open-source opponents refuse to pay anything for the company's intellectual property.

The sensible response would be to acknowledge that this little foray into industrial meddling has failed because the market has not responded in the way that the commission hoped. But that is not the commission's preferred reaction. Instead, it is blaming Microsoft for the commission's own amateurish market analysis and trying to force the company to bear the burden of fixing a broken idea.

If the commission were not empowered to gauge compliance with its own order, it would be obliged to prove to a court that it was Microsoft, and not the commission, that was at fault. But in the looking-glass world that is European antitrust enforcement, the commission gets to make Microsoft an offer it cannot refuse -- do what we say or we'll sock you with a huge fine.

Should it follow through on the threat, Microsoft will doubtless take the commission to court again. Unless it gets a stay of execution from Luxembourg, however, Microsoft will find itself, twice over, in the position of receiving the sentence first, verdict afterward, a form of jurisprudence usually found only in Alice's Wonderland.

This post was edited by jdhawk on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 at 23:27.

#3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 6/1/2005 12:27:24 AM

#2 "The other side of the case, in which Microsoft was ordered to license some of its server-software code"... and has yet to do so! The order quite clearly said within 120 days, it's now been well over 120 days so fine them 5% of their daily turnover until they comply! Eventually that 5% will add up and Microsoft will have a compelling reason to comply with the order rather than treating the courts as if they're untouchable.

#4 By 12071 (203.206.248.10) at 6/1/2005 11:10:06 AM

quux,

Why don't you simply browse through the actual ruling rather than waiting for some media outlet to provide you with their take on the ruling? In case you're curious, the link to the ruling is: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf. Start from page 298 if you'd rather not go through the whole thing.

Now rather that quoting a media outlet, I'll just quote the ruling itself:

"(a) Microsoft Corporation shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products;
(b) Microsoft Corporation shall ensure that the Interoperability Information made available is kept updated on an ongoing basis and in a Timely Manner;"

I hightlight the 3 things above to show:

1) The ruling was handed down on the 24th March 2004 - well over a year ago and well over 120 days. If Microsoft have not complied then the EC should fine then 5% of their daily turnover. After all, they've had over 3 times the amount of time originally stated! How much longer is Microsoft wanting to stretch this out?

2) Interoperability Information is defined as:
"(1) the term 'Interoperability Information' means the complete and accurate specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and that are used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to Windows Work Group Networks;"

I point this out as many of the media outlets claim that Microsoft have to give away their source code (which the zealots then have a fit about) and this is simply not true, all that is required is complete (as in 100% not close enough) and accurate (once again as in 100%) specifications.

3) Did you think that perhaps the EC didn't believe that Microsoft's license was "on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" before claiming some grand conspiracy involving FSF and OSS? If you see something wrong with the FSF or OSS or anyone for that matter sharing their views with the EC or even going as far as lobbying the EC then surely you should have an equal issue with Microsoft doing the same? After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite about this, right?

No offence but the only thing missing in your post was a mention of communism or viral-nature of the GPL - we need our daily dosage of fear to keep us in line!

#5 By 12071 (203.206.248.10) at 6/1/2005 11:16:09 AM

#5 "They would be just as upset if Slashdot started publishing tips on how to strip all traces of GNU license information from OSS code, obfuscate the code to avoid detection, etc."
Not sure what you're on about...

a) This would be the equivalent of being able to convert RedHat Desktop to Redhat Enterprise WS - or thereabouts.
b) Hasn't this information been known for years?!? I could have sworn that's how those 3-in-1, 8-in-1, 11-in-1 (whatever they're up to now) CD's were put together that include every version of XP (Home & Pro - original, oem, cracked and corporate and whatever else they put on there).

#6 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/1/2005 12:21:32 PM

The EU is essentially trying to force Microsoft to give away its intellectual property for free without a trial.

The EU competition commission (well known for harboring corrupt bribe taking bureaucrats) is not a court. It is a star chamber type group.

The best solution to this problem is for the US to put a 100% tariff on all European goods and services and to tell them to stop being thieves.

#7 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 6/1/2005 3:49:04 PM

#7, that all sounds very reasonable and of course, Microsoft should be spanked!

But, how do you explain hundreds of ISVs providing add-ons for file and print services and group and user administration services for Microsoft's OSs very successfully. For example, NetIQ, Quest Software, etc. These are companies that make tens of millions of dollars providing administrator add ons. I don't see them complaining that they can't get the information that they need to produce these tools.

Likewise, there are equally as many ISVs providing tools for programmers making tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars with their offerings. How come they don't seem to have any problems getting the information from Microsoft that they need?

Must be magic, eh?

The bottom line is that the complainers are interesting in one thing - bringing Microsft down at all costs. The simple reason for this is that they can't compete, period (some examples, Sun Microsystems has seen their products nearly pushed off the planet obstensibly by Microsft - we know better - Linux is taking them apart not Microsoft; Novell is a shadow of its former self largely because of their own ineptitude - again not because of Microsoft; Real Networks just makes a lousy, intrusive (client) and expensive (server) product). This has been the reason in the past (the DOJ trial) and (this so-called "trial" by the kangaroo EU "court") is their last best hope to quell the Microsoft giant - a giant because of millions of people buying their products because they were simply the best at the time they were available.

Hey, I've got a great solution to this whole thing - compete - build a better product than Microsoft. I dare you!

#8 By 19992 (164.214.4.31) at 6/2/2005 2:56:07 PM

#13 are interesting in one thing - bringing Microsft down at all costs ... This has been the reason in the past (the DOJ trial)

jd, I'm on board with most of your post, however, IIRC, MS was guilty as hell about several of the key portions of the DOJ lawsuit (Java compatibilty being the one I remember right now). Not every complaint about MS is unreasonable, just a seemingly growing majority.

#9 By 19992 (164.214.4.31) at 6/3/2005 2:14:01 PM

quux,

I don't recall being bothered by the Java stuff though, because I remember Sun's original promise: to create an open and extensible language.

True, but even if Sun broke their promise (I say if because I don't remember for certain). MS was clearly in the wrong for advertising that their version of Java was 100% compatible with Suns while MS knew otherwise.

At the bottom of all this is really the age-old question of justice. What is the purpose: to punish or to rehabilitate? I can get behind both, I think.

Depends on the crime I would say. For simple corporate malfeasance (I don't see anything more to Microsofts actions) rehabilitation/corrective measures would be my preffered solution as well. For something on the scale of Enron, punishment would of course be in order.

But what irks me about EU's 'open the protocols' solution is that it keeps punishing MS forever,

I think that's the goal. I'm at the point where I don't think the EU is interested in fixing the problem, rather they want to milk MS for as much money as possible,

#10 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/26/2023 2:38:20 PM