• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Microsoft suffers decisive EU antitrust defeat

imported_Tango

Golden Member

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...8uUyG_oTHc3s0PAJrQn6gB

Microsoft suffers decisive EU antitrust defeat

By David Lawsky and Sabina Zawadzki 52 minutes ago

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Microsoft (MSFT.O) suffered a decisive antitrust defeat on Monday when a European Union court upheld a landmark ruling that the world's largest software maker had abused its dominant market position to crush rivals.
ADVERTISEMENT

The second-highest EU court dismissed the company's appeal on all key points against the 2004 European Commission ruling and upheld a record 497 million euro ($689.9 million) fine.

A jubilant EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the ruling should lead to a "significant drop" in Microsoft's 95 percent market share. Microsoft's top lawyer said it would affect the way the company markets its products in future.

Shares in the U.S. software giant were down 1.14 percent in morning New York trade after the Luxembourg-based court's ruling, suggesting investors were not overly concerned about the implications for Microsoft's successful business model.

Kim Caughey, senior analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group, which oversees more than $1 billion including Microsoft shares, for clients, said: "Although this is probably a setback for Microsoft's strategy going forward, it's not that big a deal for investors. The fines have already been accounted for, so none of the stuff announced today had bottom-line impact."

Competition experts said the ruling had serious long-term implications for EU regulation of the hi-tech sector.

"It's clearly a major defeat for Microsoft. There is no doubt it will spur the Commission on to regulate Microsoft much more significantly," said UK competition lawyer Chris Bright.

It also gives Kroes a green light to pursue other antitrust cases and complaints involving Intel (INTC.O), Qualcomm (QCOM.O) and Rambus (RMBS.O), and to issue draft antitrust guidelines that were put on ice pending the ruling.

CONSUMER CHOICE

The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice.

The EU's Kroes told a news conference: "The court has confirmed that Microsoft can no longer prevent the market from functioning properly and consumers are entitled to benefit from choice and more innovative products."

An appeal against the ruling is possible only on points of law and not of fact.

Asked how the Commission would assess progress in the Microsoft case, Kroes said: "A market level of much less than 95 percent would be a way of measuring success ... You can't draw a line and say exactly 50 (percent) is correct, but a significant drop in market share is what we would like to see."

Her spokesman later clarified that a fall in market share would be a logical consequence of fairer competition. A lawyer for Microsoft's rivals in the case said it was the abuse of the company's position that was the problem, not its market share.

"If Microsoft, competing on the merits, achieves more dominance, then so be it," Thomas Vinje, lawyer for the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), told journalists.

"DISAPPOINTING"

The court endorsed Commission sanctions against Microsoft's tying together of software and refusal to give rival makers of office servers information to enable their products to work smoothly with Windows.

The Commission ordered the company to sell a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player application used for video and music, which few have bought, and to share information allowing rivals' office servers to work smoothly with Windows.

The court annulled only the EU regulator's imposition of a Microsoft-funded trustee to monitor compliance.

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith called the ruling unprecedented and disappointing, saying it gave the Commission "quite broad power and quite broad discretion."

He promised the company would comply fully and said it had not decided whether to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

Microsoft, which had argued that it was entitled to protect its patents and copyright, has used every legal recourse in every case brought against it by governments and regulators.

The firm has weathered a series of defeats in high profile antitrust cases over a decade.

Kroes declined to discuss the implications of the ruling for a pending complaint from ECIS against the new Microsoft Vista on grounds that this operating system too had problems with interoperability.

ECIS and other rivals welcomed the court verdict as setting the ground rules for the company's future behavior and as a signal that EU authorities will not allow Microsoft to pursue anti-competitive practices with impunity.

Another winner was the Free Software Foundation, which makes free, open software for workgroup servers. "Microsoft can consider itself above the law no longer," said Georg Greve, president of the FSF Europe.

The judges ordered Microsoft to pay the lion's share of the costs of the Commission and of business rivals.

Since the original decision, the Commission has fined Microsoft a further 280.5 million euros, saying it had failed to comply with the interoperability sanction. The EU regulator is considering a further fine for non-compliance.

(additional reporting by Georgina Prodhan in Frankfurt, Jonathan Cable in London, Mark John and Michele Sinner in Luxembourg, William Schomberg, Darren Ennis, Dale Hudson and Huw Jones in Brussels)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...06z7ef0z2jGGpdzBHQn6gB


AP
EU dominates in antitrust, experts say



By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Business Writer 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A European Union appeals court's decision to uphold a 2004 antitrust order against Microsoft Corp. means that U.S.-based multinationals will continue to face tougher competition rules in Europe than at home, legal experts said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Many U.S. companies hoped that the EU's Court of First Instance would take steps to restrain the European Commission. The case is one of the first opportunities for the courts to interpret the EU's antitrust laws.

Instead, Microsoft on Monday lost its appeal of a European antitrust order that obliges the technology giant to pay a $613 million fine, share communications code with rivals and sell a copy of Windows without Media Player. The EU Court agreed that Microsoft abused its monopoly in trying to muscle into server software.

The decision likely cements Europe's role as the lead international regulator of dominant companies, said M.J. Moltenbray, a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

"In global markets, the antitrust policy that matters is the most restrictive one," she said.

The ruling could also make Europe's antitrust regime more attractive to developing countries such as China and India, which are just beginning to implement competition laws, Moltenbray said.

Both the United States and EU have sought to influence developing countries' legal systems, Moltenbray said, but the Microsoft ruling shows that the European model allows greater government intervention in the market, which many countries may prefer.

Carole Handler, a Los Angeles-based attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP, said the ruling "just crystallizes the incredible difference between the antitrust philosophies of the EU and the United States."

A group of U.S. software companies, including Oracle Corp., Novell Inc. and Sun Microsystems Inc., applauded the ruling.

The international scope of the EU's role was reflected in the Microsoft case in that it was Sun, a U.S.-based multinational, rather than a European company, that brought the initial complaint in Europe.

"Microsoft's rivals...haven't been able to get the constraints they wanted out of U.S. courts, so they're trying to get them out of the European Union," Keith Hylton, a professor at Boston University School of Law, said Friday.

The EU court's decision is unlikely to have a direct impact on Microsoft's antitrust case in the United States, Moltenbray and Hylton said. The Justice Department's case against the software company is narrower and unlike the EU's ruling, doesn't bar bundling applications such as Windows Media Player.

Still, a group of states led by California is seeking to extend a consent decree reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft, which is scheduled to end in November, for five additional years. Lawyers said they expect the EU court's decision to be cited in the states' written request for the extension, due Oct. 15.


Now it might interesting to see if this case changes anything in the corporate strategies other companies are pursuing, most notably those related to DMR. In recent news, for example, Apple basically chained iPod user to their proprietary software iTunes, something that has already raised eyebrows in Bruxelles.
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
EU courts can fvck themselves. They can't stand an American company making profit.

😕

How would exactly Microsoft make less profits selling Windows with a missing component? The EU is asking them to stop giving away Media Player for free...
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
EU courts can fvck themselves. They can't stand an American company making profit.

😕

How would exactly Microsoft make less profits selling Windows with a missing component? The EU is asking them to stop giving away Media Player for free...

and then it will be their firewall, and then their file indexing, and then their browser.

Businesses were formed to fill in some of the deficiencies in MS windows. When those deficiencies are dealt with by MS, said companies better have a product that stands well enough on it's own, or they go under. Theres tons of industries that are similar. Like foghorn said, the EU should go fvck themselves.
 
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
690M Dollars? Lets see. Let me get out the petty cash box......

It's 5% of yearly profits, plus they have to pay legal expenses of the whole EU commission. But the interesting thing is not the money, it's the sentence, and its echo on the similar case Microsoft has in the US. And even most important how this will change the corporate strategies of other companies in proprietary technology, most notably DMRs.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
EU courts can fvck themselves. They can't stand an American company making profit.

😕

How would exactly Microsoft make less profits selling Windows with a missing component? The EU is asking them to stop giving away Media Player for free...

and then it will be their firewall, and then their file indexing, and then their browser.

Businesses were formed to fill in some of the deficiencies in MS windows. When those deficiencies are dealt with by MS, said companies better have a product that stands well enough on it's own, or they go under. Theres tons of industries that are similar. Like foghorn said, the EU should go fvck themselves.

They have already another case open for the firewall/antivirus thing, and rightly so. File indexing, no. That's specifically what an OS is about.

But again the point is, complying with the law doesn't erode Microsoft profits, it only erodes Microsoft attempt to establish a monopoly in businesses different from OS. You want to bundle a free media player? Good, just put a window at start-up asking the user if he wants it.

Besides, the other companies mentioned in the article as you see are American as well.

A group of U.S. software companies, including Oracle Corp., Novell Inc. and Sun Microsystems Inc., applauded the ruling.
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
EU courts can fvck themselves. They can't stand an American company making profit.

Heavy fines for German bank cartel

EU imposes heavy fine on cartel

And another one

I'm not amazed that the cattle humping crowd is coming out of the woodworks again seeing this as anti-american. It took me exactly 2 minutes of googling to find other cases where European companies were heavily fined.

It's not because US customers wants to take up it the ass from big business that we should
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
EU courts can fvck themselves. They can't stand an American company making profit.

😕

How would exactly Microsoft make less profits selling Windows with a missing component? The EU is asking them to stop giving away Media Player for free...

I like MP. I wouldn't want to pay for it separately. I like having a firewall there before I research the best one to buy, etc.
Why does the EU have any say on how an OS is marketed?
OS isn't just an OS anymore. Are they going to sue for the MC editions of Windows?
This is crap.


freegeeks. Okay, you win. EU courts have something against profit.
 
I like MP. I wouldn't want to pay for it separately. I like having a firewall there before I research the best one to buy, etc.

who said that Microsoft can not provide mp for free from their website?

seriously, READ the verdict before you start talking out of your ass because you have no idea what you are talking about
 
Originally posted by: freegeeks
I like MP. I wouldn't want to pay for it separately. I like having a firewall there before I research the best one to buy, etc.

who said that Microsoft can not provide mp for free from their website?

seriously, READ the verdict before you start talking out of your ass because you have no idea what you are talking about

Actually they can even bundle, just offer the possibility not to install it.
 
How ridiculous. Unbundling WMP? What about Quicktime/iTunes on the Mac, or any other built-in features that are not core-OS items?

What this comes down to is money. Not MS making a bigger profit or MS being a monopoly, but other companies bitching that their products are inferior. In the days of plethoric broadband, easy replacements, and better computer education, one would think that if you didn't like what you have, then you can go get something else. AFAIK, MS, in no way, prevents other companies from developing and installing systems. If you want iTunes instead of WMP, or any other media player, you can get it.

What happens when you don't have it installed? You go get it! Wow, what a fvcking novel concept. Eventually you get to the same situation, but instead of having to get it by default, it's already there for you.

Face it, if anything were as convenient and easy, as to entice somebody to replace WMP or IE, then it would. However, that's a personal choice. If somebody thinks Firefox will offer more utility, then they will seek it out. Otherwise BFD if IE is already installed?

 
I think Firefox, iTunes and Winamp are excellent examples of why this kind of legislation is ridiculous. Superior products do gain traction, despite the inherent advantage given to Microsoft's bundled software.

It also gives Kroes a green light to pursue other antitrust cases and complaints involving Intel (INTC.O), Qualcomm (QCOM.O) and Rambus (RMBS.O), and to issue draft antitrust guidelines that were put on ice pending the ruling.

Yikes.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
How ridiculous. Unbundling WMP? What about Quicktime/iTunes on the Mac, or any other built-in features that are not core-OS items?

What this comes down to is money. Not MS making a bigger profit or MS being a monopoly, but other companies bitching that their products are inferior. In the days of plethoric broadband, easy replacements, and better computer education, one would think that if you didn't like what you have, then you can go get something else. AFAIK, MS, in no way, prevents other companies from developing and installing systems. If you want iTunes instead of WMP, or any other media player, you can get it.

What happens when you don't have it installed? You go get it! Wow, what a fvcking novel concept. Eventually you get to the same situation, but instead of having to get it by default, it's already there for you.

Face it, if anything were as convenient and easy, as to entice somebody to replace WMP or IE, then it would. However, that's a personal choice. If somebody thinks Firefox will offer more utility, then they will seek it out. Otherwise BFD if IE is already installed?

Media Player was only an example, this verdict is relevant in the case of all the other softwares as well. It just says that making the OS doesn't allow a company to force other softwares in the package without the consumer actually wanting it. Put a dialog box asking you if you want to install WMP and it's all good.

Apple is under scrutiny for iTunes as well, and for a range of charges wider than this Microsoft case.

There's a big difference between you go get it, and I choose it for you. Eventually you can get to the same situation, but you can also get to a different situation. That's the whole point about anti-trust laws.

You Firefox example is also very pertinent, considering Mozilla is accusing Microsoft of willingly make it harder for Firefox to work in Vista, as their WMP often refuses to co-operate with their browser.

The nature of monopolies and cartels is such that you need to act way before the problem is critical. If you don't defend competition today, tomorrow you might find that there is no competition to defend anymore.
 
This is stupid. This can all be workarounded ( i made up a word) by other programs selected as the default player for the desired file format. I could have another MP working, and not ever see MS MP ever pop up if I wanted to. Why make a law for un-bundling? Why would someone have to dl it? And why does MS have to pay over half a billion?
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
This is stupid. This can all be workarounded ( i made up a word) by other programs selected as the default player for the desired file format. I could have another MP working, and not ever see MS MP ever pop up if I wanted to. Why make a law for un-bundling? Why would someone have to dl it? And why does MS have to pay over half a billion?

Did you read the articles?
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Media Player was only an example, this verdict is relevant in the case of all the other softwares as well. It just says that making the OS doesn't allow a company to force other softwares in the package without the consumer actually wanting it. Put a dialog box asking you if you want to install WMP and it's all good.

Apple is under scrutiny for iTunes as well, and for a range of charges wider than this Microsoft case.

There's a big difference between you go get it, and I choose it for you. Eventually you can get to the same situation, but you can also get to a different situation. That's the whole point about anti-trust laws.

You Firefox example is also very pertinent, considering Mozilla is accusing Microsoft of willingly make it harder for Firefox to work in Vista, as their WMP often refuses to co-operate with their browser.

The nature of monopolies and cartels is such that you need to act way before the problem is critical. If you don't defend competition today, tomorrow you might find that there is no competition to defend anymore.

I agree that this is a bigger problem. However, bundled software is a good thing for the consumer. It gives them more diversity from the get-go and the ability to find whatever they want if they don't like what they currently have. If the replacement delivers more value then it will be used. Considering that most of this is pre-packaged for owners from OEMs, who usually install other software with it, including other media players or browsers, it's even less of an issue.

Frankly, I see no problem with them burning the hell out of Apple. If there was a more neferious and controlling company out there, I don't know where to find it. Their simple ultimate control over hardware *and* software is stupid. MS is far more open by comparison.

Who says it's not just Mozilla? I use Firefox every day, since I find additional utility with it, and I have problems with other things with Mozilla.

It seems like a ridiculous issue since almost any pre-packaged items with any purchase could be considered a monopoly.

 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Tango
Media Player was only an example, this verdict is relevant in the case of all the other softwares as well. It just says that making the OS doesn't allow a company to force other softwares in the package without the consumer actually wanting it. Put a dialog box asking you if you want to install WMP and it's all good.

Apple is under scrutiny for iTunes as well, and for a range of charges wider than this Microsoft case.

There's a big difference between you go get it, and I choose it for you. Eventually you can get to the same situation, but you can also get to a different situation. That's the whole point about anti-trust laws.

You Firefox example is also very pertinent, considering Mozilla is accusing Microsoft of willingly make it harder for Firefox to work in Vista, as their WMP often refuses to co-operate with their browser.

The nature of monopolies and cartels is such that you need to act way before the problem is critical. If you don't defend competition today, tomorrow you might find that there is no competition to defend anymore.

I agree that this is a bigger problem. However, bundled software is a good thing for the consumer. It gives them more diversity from the get-go and the ability to find whatever they want if they don't like what they currently have. If the replacement delivers more value then it will be used. Considering that most of this is pre-packaged for owners from OEMs, who usually install other software with it, including other media players or browsers, it's even less of an issue.

Frankly, I see no problem with them burning the hell out of Apple. If there was a more neferious and controlling company out there, I don't know where to find it. Their simple ultimate control over hardware *and* software is stupid. MS is far more open by comparison.

Who says it's not just Mozilla? I use Firefox every day, since I find additional utility with it, and I have problems with other things with Mozilla.

It seems like a ridiculous issue since almost any pre-packaged items with any purchase could be considered a monopoly.

I do like WMP and I am ready to bet that the no-WMP version of vista will sell less than 10 copies, but this is not the point. The point is, if you want to bundle something, you must also give the possibility to consumers not to install it. Same thing with the thousands of applications that try to install Google search bar or other stuff. Personally, I don't want that stuff, and I would be pissed if there wasn't a dialog box to ask me if I want or not the extra free software. And this is from the consumer perspective.

Now, from the competition perspective. Those who make software must work on a platform, represented by the OS. If the producer of the OS is also a competitor in the other software markets, you must make sure it lets the competition access information so to be able to develop their products. As you see this verdict includes this. How would it be if Toyota produced tires too, and wouldn't let anybody know the precise dimensions of their wheels? Nobody could produce tires for their cars, leaving them a monopoly in the tires market.

Of course in software the problem is magnified by the fact that basically a couple of OS make 99% of the market.

Now Apple made their last generation of iPods only compatible with their media player. The .mp3 standard is open, why wouldn't consumers be free to use another software to manage their files? They also have a trial open because itunes store violates the cross-border rules of the EU:

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...HNitunesborders_1.html

Things like this obviously only exist as strategies to achieve monopolistic control over a market, leveraging on the quasi-monopolistic control a company already has in a complementary market.

And you might rejoice today because it looks like you are getting a media player for free, but if as a result of this you lose competition, you'll pay them back with interests in the future.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Did you read the articles?

Your avatar should be a parrot too.

This statement pissed me off.
"The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. "

In 2004, I don't recall any Windows MP, IE, or much else squeezing crap. I could install another default MP, Firefox browser, and a security suite offering it's own firewall.
Their comments tell the true to story on the hate mongering.
It's all totally nonsense.
If you made floormats, would you sue Ford for bundling theirs?
 
Interesting their measure is how much marketshare MS retains. Does this factor in unsuitable alternatives?

Not that I think MS isnt a monopoly. But the problem with relying on marketshare is if there is a lack of suitable competition. Linux for all its hype is but a pimple on the ass of the computer industry on the home desktop. They cant even give it away for free and have it widely adopted by avg joe.

 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Did you read the articles?

Your avatar should be a parrot too.

This statement pissed me off.
"The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. "

In 2004, I don't recall any Windows MP, IE, or much else squeezing crap. I could install another default MP, Firefox browser, and a security suite offering it's own firewall.
Their comments tell the true to story on the hate mongering.
It's all totally nonsense.
If you made floormats, would you sue Ford for bundling theirs?

I like parrots, I used to have one when I was a kid.

I only asked if you read the articles because the answer to your questions was in the first 5 lines of both.

If Fords were the only cars available, and I made floormats, I would sue Ford if they would not allow me to measure the cockpit in order to build my floormats.


The court endorsed Commission sanctions against Microsoft's tying together of software and refusal to give rival makers of office servers information to enable their products to work smoothly with Windows.

Besides, floormats are accessories to cars, not complements.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Did you read the articles?

Your avatar should be a parrot too.

This statement pissed me off.
"The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. "

In 2004, I don't recall any Windows MP, IE, or much else squeezing crap. I could install another default MP, Firefox browser, and a security suite offering it's own firewall.
Their comments tell the true to story on the hate mongering.
It's all totally nonsense.
If you made floormats, would you sue Ford for bundling theirs?

I like parrots, I used to have one when I was a kid.

I only asked if you read the articles because the answer to your questions was in the first 5 lines of both.

If Fords were the only cars available, and I made floormats, I would sue Ford if they would not allow me to measure the cockpit in order to build my floormats.


The court endorsed Commission sanctions against Microsoft's tying together of software and refusal to give rival makers of office servers information to enable their products to work smoothly with Windows.

Besides, floormats are accessories to cars, not complements.

MS isn't the only OS.
 
Glad to see it. They got off with a slap on the wrist in the US, and ended up going right back to what they were doing. They're still trying to cram IE down our throats. I don't care how many Firefox features they steal, I'll use IE when pigs fly.
 
Originally posted by: daveshel
Glad to see it. They got off with a slap on the wrist in the US, and ended up going right back to what they were doing. They're still trying to cram IE down our throats. I don't care how many Firefox features they steal, I'll use IE when pigs fly.

And the great thing about choice, whether pre-installed or downloadable, is that you have whatever you want 🙂 I myself will NEVER use Firefox. Well, maybe when pigs fly 😉
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Did you read the articles?

Your avatar should be a parrot too.

This statement pissed me off.
"The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. "

In 2004, I don't recall any Windows MP, IE, or much else squeezing crap. I could install another default MP, Firefox browser, and a security suite offering it's own firewall.
Their comments tell the true to story on the hate mongering.
It's all totally nonsense.
If you made floormats, would you sue Ford for bundling theirs?

I like parrots, I used to have one when I was a kid.

I only asked if you read the articles because the answer to your questions was in the first 5 lines of both.

If Fords were the only cars available, and I made floormats, I would sue Ford if they would not allow me to measure the cockpit in order to build my floormats.


The court endorsed Commission sanctions against Microsoft's tying together of software and refusal to give rival makers of office servers information to enable their products to work smoothly with Windows.

Besides, floormats are accessories to cars, not complements.

MS isn't the only OS.

But, as LK has very articulately stated, it's clearly the best one.
 
Back
Top