Microsoft loses appeal versus the European commission.

[Zerzera]

Antitrust: Commission welcomes CFI ruling upholding Commission’s decision on Microsoft's abuse of dominant market position

The European Commission welcomes today's ruling by the Court of First Instance upholding the European Commission’s 2004 decision on Microsoft's abuse of its dominant market position and confirming the totality of the fine imposed. In this decision, Microsoft was fined €497 million for infringing the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players (see IP/04/382 and MEMO/04/70). This conduct hindered innovation in the markets concerned to the detriment of consumers. To put an end to this abusive behaviour, the Commission ordered Microsoft to disclose interoperability information which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers and to offer a version of its Windows operating system without Windows Media Player. The Court’s ruling confirms that the Commission was right to prohibit Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct which harmed competition to the detriment of consumers.

source: European Commission website

The case:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...ses/microsoft/

[Zerzera]

I wonder if it's going to change as much as the EC hopes it will. But I do hope that Microsoft settles with the verdict.

[Jerome Scuggs]

why don't we just get rid of the patents office so noone will ever have to worry about being locked out? it's not fair that bill gates copyrighted windows, fuck that guy. the fact that he developed technology that i can't use is pretty fuckin' lame, and for some reason the mere fact that he owns technology that i can't freely have makes me never want to touch a computer again. christ, bill gates acts like he invented the home desktop computer or something. how dare he have a say in how others steal his technology?

[MetalHeadz]

Lol, I love the way the American Government and indeed European financial organisations exaggerate any possible infringement of free trade with upper-limit fines on conglomerates like Microsoft. It's this mentality that just because a company is extremely profitable it some how owes you money. We saw the same with McClaren earlier this week for some dubiously small crime.

I don't understand how 'hindering innovation' is such a crime, by Microsofts very presence in the computing market they hinder innovation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support serious infringements of free trade such as price fixing and such. It just seems to me that a lot of Economists like to get on the moral bandwagon with regard to large monopolies. The fact is, whole economies hinge on the success of companies such as Microsoft - give it some respect.

[Jerome Scuggs]

"How is Microsoft inflicting punishment? Does it force anyone to buy its bundled product? Does it forcibly prevent anyone from using Quicktime? Is it not obvious that the EU directly is punishing the consumer by intervening with Microsoft? Who will bear the humongous legal fees and fines, at least in part, if not the consumer? Who will lose out from the chill on future innovation if not the consumer? And isn’t the EU directly responsible for all of this harm?

What utter hypocrisy and stupidity are on parade here.

Are we supposed to pity Microsoft’s rivals? Are we supposed to reward their incompetence? The court opined that selling media software with Windows had damaged rivals. If it was a successful product, what else could we expect but that rivals should be damaged? It is a good sign that they have been damaged. It means that customers were benefited. The rivals do not own the customers. They cannot make them buy their products, not unless the EU intervenes and tries to raise Microsoft’s costs."

nt

[Ayano]

I blame all the unix users complaining about poor development tools and applications designed for their systems. well them and other OS users.

If windows has done anything right, its been it's strong support for developers which other OSs have lacked. Well there is also the fact that they are the largest user base, but what brought that about?

"developers developers developers developers... developers developers developers developers!"

the mac guys had a field day with that one, but at least Microsoft knows where it's heart is rather than touting flashy GrApHicS with poor stability and an interface with a 2 year old in mind.

Regardless though, i wouldn't trust my server to a windows box, I'll always reserve that to unix. I've heard somw good things about windows.net, anyone have an opinion on that?

[Noah]

The laws are there to prevent companies from exploiting their monopoly, which they should do, and is needed. However, it seems like most of the cases that is raised with this law is more like a witch hunt. There is nothing in Windows that prevents you to get other media players than Windows Media Player. From the outcome of this case, it seems like there would be no difference if Windows had put in codes to prevent any other media players to be installed into the OS. This is FAR, FAR from the case of what Windows is doing.

[Zerzera]

"How is Microsoft inflicting punishment? Does it force anyone to buy its bundled product? Does it forcibly prevent anyone from using Quicktime? Is it not obvious that the EU directly is punishing the consumer by intervening with Microsoft? Who will bear the humongous legal fees and fines, at least in part, if not the consumer? Who will lose out from the chill on future innovation if not the consumer? And isn’t the EU directly responsible for all of this harm?

What utter hypocrisy and stupidity are on parade here.

Are we supposed to pity Microsoft’s rivals? Are we supposed to reward their incompetence? The court opined that selling media software with Windows had damaged rivals. If it was a successful product, what else could we expect but that rivals should be damaged? It is a good sign that they have been damaged. It means that customers were benefited. The rivals do not own the customers. They cannot make them buy their products, not unless the EU intervenes and tries to raise Microsoft’s costs."

nt

Microsoft is sued by the European Commission, which protects the rights of the European citizens, as you can read on their website the fine will be 'returned to the citizens' by deducting it from their contribution to the EU.

There is only so little people educated in computer science, you can't expect a painter to know what's the best / suitable product, so if one company has gained over 95% of a market it means there is no longer a free market.
You make the mistake of separating politics from economics and trade. Our governments and commissions are really representatives of us, the consumers. They are installed, by us, to study these cases and undertake action to protect our interests.

I myself am against intellectual property, or at least unlimited intellectual property, to me it shows the fallacy of the human race.
It is very well possible for two people to make the same connections and have the same creative idea. But only one with enough money would be able to protect this idea.
Bill Gates is for intellectual property, but then Microsoft has the money, the power and recourses to overcome intellectual property.
But yet, look at the Eolas Case.. Look at the features in IE7 and Vista, can you really call that renewing and innovating? Nowadays marketing makes most of the product.

Like Heineken beer versus 'cheap supermarket beer' (Aldi). First the panel had to rate the beer based on the brand, Heineken had a high mark, the Aldi brand had a low mark.
But in the blind test Heineken scored remarkably lower than the beer of the Aldi.
Yet Heineken 'owns' most of the Dutch bars and has a lot of power over these bars. The main breweries of the EU were fined by the European Commission since we've been paying too much for their beer because of their illegal agreements.
Still, almost any bar gets supplied by these breweries, why?
You've been screwed over by your supplier but you stick to them? What's wrong here?

[Mantra-Slider]

We saw the same with McClaren earlier this week for some dubiously small crime.

lol what, are you serious? jesus fucking god if you are serious.

[Zerzera]

The laws are there to prevent companies from exploiting their monopoly, which they should do, and is needed. However, it seems like most of the cases that is raised with this law is more like a witch hunt. There is nothing in Windows that prevents you to get other media players than Windows Media Player. From the outcome of this case, it seems like there would be no difference if Windows had put in codes to prevent any other media players to be installed into the OS. This is FAR, FAR from the case of what Windows is doing.

Yes, it's sort of a witch hunt against monopolies. Basically the EU doesn't want one single company to own an entire market. Or have the main players in one single segment have treaties in such a way that they act like one company towards the consumer.
Don't make the mistake to think that the most successful company has the best product and is by definition the best for the consumer.
Look for instance at Internet Explorer, it had a market share of over 95%, yet it was outdated and most exploitable. You can discuss which browser was better, or if there was a better browser, but it still stands that for most people another browser wasn't an option.
Why? Because there weren't enough Opera commercials on television to tell you that there was another browser than the one that came with your PC?
Like Neelie Kroes said, they just don't want to have a company own such a large portion of the market, because no one will try to penetrate a market that is owned like that, or will find any investors for that matter.
They just force Microsoft to facilitate, it's sad for Microsoft, but it's better for the Europeans, and we happen to be the market.

[Noah]

Your point with IE is very valid, Zerz. I couldn't manige without Firefox today.

However, something has to be a default program. If you got Windows without alot of the programs you had today, you'd get a Windows that would be a worse product. To even it up, you'd either have to strip Windows from programs that other developers sells (media player, explorer, just to mention a few), or let the other developers get their programs into the Microsoft bundle. If you'd have to buy Windows, which included the competition on all fields, then you'd have to pay more for the bundle to pay the other companies. Either you, or Microsoft or would have to pay them.

Do you think a 60 year old woman would care to explore all the different programs to satisfy her needs to pay the bills and check her mail? Those users would never think of downloading and installing a program that has a few extra functions, and another design. They wouldn't even touch a program that they hadn't heard of, even if it came bundled. My friends stephdad is afraid of computers, he looks at it as super expensive high tech and doesn't let anyone near his comp. Even if Bill Gates stood in his room and told him that IE sucked, and that Firefox was better, he'd cling on to IE.

Most of the non-geek users barely knows about any other alternatives to anything, even their OS, because they never buy computer magazines, or bother to check it up on the internet. It's just a bills/mail checking machine.

[Ewan]

Great so now even MORE stupid people's computers are going to be filled with crap like Quicktime and Realplayer.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Don't make the mistake to think that the most successful company has the best product and is by definition the best for the consumer.

Conversely, don't make the mistake to think that a third party company has it all figured out and has a better product. I'm not saying that MS is doing everything right, since they aren't, I'm just saying that everyone's looking for a profit--no one's making things just to make your life better.

Look for instance at Internet Explorer, it had a market share of over 95%, yet it was outdated and most exploitable. You can discuss which browser was better, or if there was a better browser, but it still stands that for most people another browser wasn't an option.
Why?

Because most people aren't smart enough to know how to load another browser, let alone know that you could? Seriously, I'd rather have a default that sucked ass then no default and have to have a "professional" install something else. The IE thing is kind of retarded, since every modern OS is bundled with a browser.

A while ago (it may still be the case), every Mac sold was bundled with Safari. Safari sucked major asshole, and wasn't really any more compatible or bug-free than IE. Did anyone go after Apple? No. Has anyone since? Not really. Oh shit guys, iPhone and the new iPod Touch have standard pre-loaded browsers! How's MS gonna compete with a standard browser on that phone?! I smell a lawsuit!

Like Neelie Kroes said, they just don't want to have a company own such a large portion of the market, because no one will try to penetrate a market that is owned like that, or will find any investors for that matter.

Why? Because they couldn't convince anyone that they could do it better? I don't think any market has a product that is so refined that it can't be improved upon, and software is definitely not in that category. IE's far from perfect, and someone can always build a better mousetrap (to mix metaphors, but whatever, this thread's a shitbox). Wanna know why IE does so well, outside of being packaged? Because it performs well enough that most people don't actively search out alternatives. Should you have to? As far as I've ever encountered, no MS police have ever come over to my house and kicked me in the nuts for having multiple browsers loaded--it's not like there's anything stopping me.

Congrats Europe, you're becoming more ludicrously litigious (like us) every day.

[Zerzera]

It's hard to me to decide what side you are on Conc, because some of your statements justify the EC's act.

Conversely, don't make the mistake to think that a third party company has it all figured out and has a better product. I'm not saying that MS is doing everything right, since they aren't, I'm just saying that everyone's looking for a profit--no one's making things just to make your life better.

And that's why you should be able to chose a product that does! Because now everything is all-in the PC you buy. Normally that's a good thing; Dell and others can sell you cheap standardized products. But it's all-in-microsoft on some level. It's very hard to pick a brand that feels like it fits you better because you are already paying for the Microsoft products when you buy a PC.
EDIT: creating a new market of course, not penetrating one

Because most people aren't smart enough to know how to load another browser, let alone know that you could? Seriously, I'd rather have a default that sucked ass then no default and have to have a "professional" install something else. The IE thing is kind of retarded, since every modern OS is bundled with a browser.

Same thing as my brewery/bars example. The company you buy a PC already picked for you, and since Microsoft OWNS the market, they force themselves upon the 'professionals' that should pick a PC for you that works for you. You go to a professional that will always tell you to go for a microsoft product because it's all there is? Meanwhile you already payed for the bundled software, so picking another program for certain tasks is paying double.
This is how the free market works, and that's why we shouldn't have a totally free market, and there is no free market anywhere.

The IE example was only about intellectual property, not about Microsoft having a monopoly.

A while ago (it may still be the case), every Mac sold was bundled with Safari. Safari sucked major asshole, and wasn't really any more compatible or bug-free than IE. Did anyone go after Apple? No. Has anyone since? Not really. Oh shit guys, iPhone and the new iPod Touch have standard pre-loaded browsers! How's MS gonna compete with a standard browser on that phone?! I smell a lawsuit!

Mac is about the only computer that comes with it's own OS? They have a market share of? ~5%? About every PC sold, no matter what brand, comes with Microsoft OS. With Microsoft OWNING the market there is no way you can penetrate the existing market, unless you invent something that's better than a PC of course (and a laptop is a PC here).


Forget about the IE thing, I was talking about Intellectual Property and how, while it protects innovators, blocks innovation based on innovations.
I know that a product doesn't have to be perfect, but intellectual property means nothing more than free market for the ones that can afford it. Creativity for the ones that can afford to buy the pillars of their creativity.

I can understand what your point is, I know there is no such thing as a perfect product. Anything that's made by human hands is by definition unfit for every human. But I would very much like it when I go to a shop to buy a PC, and I can actually decide what OS suits me and then decide if I want to pay for a load of programs or that I don't need them.
It's very nice for Microsoft that they put a lot of money in developing a Media Player, but I don't like the fact that I had to pay for it to be included Microsoft XP professional while I had to pay for my Winamp copy to play music the way I want it.

[Fluffz]

another punch in your guts mainstream conformity. Mc Donalds, YOU ARE NEXT!