PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft may face daily EU fine


RobertoOrtiz
12-22-2005, 02:00 PM
Quote:
"The EU threatens to fine Microsoft 2m euros a day until it opens up its operating systems to rival companies."

>>LINK<< (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm)
-R

Lordiego01
12-22-2005, 02:54 PM
Disgusting.

fabman
12-22-2005, 03:13 PM
Disgusting that EU threatens Microsoft or that Microsoft does not want to open up its operating systems to rival companies?.

Fides
12-22-2005, 03:16 PM
EU press release here. (http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en#file.tmp_Foot_1)This part of the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future.


Ok, so because MS uses it's dominant position to push its products, this artificially reduces the incentives of other companies to market their products for alternate formats and players and in the end reduces innovation. So how does forcing Microsoft to divulge it's trade secrets promote innovation and choice? How is what the EU doing not anymore 'artificial' that what it claims Microsoft is doing? I personally find this argument absurd. Media companies have choices, people have choices. This doesn't have anything to do with innovation or choice, rather it's used to blunt Microsoft's dominant position. Hard to believe they spent 5 years and millions of dollars on this. So people can watch movies.

I'm all for innovation and choice, but ultimately the consumer will dictate that, not the EU. All you need to do is look at the example of Linux or Firefox for that.

Beamtracer
12-22-2005, 03:16 PM
Disgusting.
Why is it disgusting? Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist, as was the verdict of the Department Of Justice case in the United States.

Given this kind of behavior, it's proper for our European friends to slap big fines on Microsoft, who must be taught not to abuse its monopoly.

tozz
12-22-2005, 03:54 PM
Every program and driver, even services that comes with Windows are removable. I don't understand why the ignorance and stupidity of the average joe (no offence to anyone named Joe) shall dictate everything. Microsoft has absolutely used their position to do some suspicious stuff, but this whole deal with WMP is becoming boring, if you don't want it, remove it, why make it so damn hard? As for alternatives, there's more of them than you could possible use.

I find it more disgusting that EU becomes more and more of a prison every day, this is probably just a cover story to hide their own sickening agenda.

Tlock
12-22-2005, 04:13 PM
That statement couldn't be further from the truth.....go ahead and uninstall IE off you windows 2000 or XP system.

jbo
12-22-2005, 04:25 PM
yeah, IE can't easily be uninstalled, but it can easily not be used. i think firefox has proven that given a good alternative, users are more than willing to install a different browser. MS, has done some fishy stuff for sure, but i don't think having a media player and web browser that come with the OS is a bad thing...(well, IE is a bad thing, but that's a different matter).

gruvsyco
12-22-2005, 04:37 PM
This is retarded. In the above quoted example, the same could be said of Apple and Quicktime, except I don't know of any other app that will play .mov (at least on windows) unless you use the half-assed free codecs that emulate QT. Realmedia is a proprietary format as well.

The solution is simple, if you don't like the OS, move on, run something else. I first used Linux on x86 back in the mid-late 90s and prior to that I used a Mac, there are alternatives to windows. Quit tying up the court systems with stupid lawsuits and trying to beat down MS because you f***ing losers can't accomplish what MS has, SUCCESS. Move On!

tozz
12-22-2005, 04:51 PM
That statement couldn't be further from the truth.....go ahead and uninstall IE off you windows 2000 or XP system.
No problem, I just have IE for windowsupdate, if I wanted it gone it would be. Not only the browser but the IE core can be removed too.
Just because you don't know how to do it, or even care to google for it doesn't mean it's not possible, this is exactly what I'm talking about, but I guess ignorance is bliss.

Beamtracer
12-22-2005, 04:53 PM
i don't think having a media player and web browser that come with the OS is a bad thing...(well, IE is a bad thing, but that's a different matter).
The manufacturer of your computer hardware should be the one to bundle software (eg browsers and media players) with your machine.

It would be easy for a company like HP, Dell or Gateway to include a Firefox browser and a RealPlayer with every Windows machine, but Microsoft won't let them.

In this case in Europe, Microsoft is making it difficult for companies making server software to compete. Microsoft withholds information the other companies need to allow their software to interface with Windows.

Microsoft has been given a month to compete fairly, or else it must pay heavy fines.

danimat0r
12-22-2005, 05:21 PM
Wow. Europe is stupid.

Well, old news.

Pinkus
12-22-2005, 05:24 PM
I'm European and actually Italian. In my country the (now ex- , I belive) commissioner M. Monti is regarded as a personality deserving great respect, and who gained respect for Italy itself in its service to the EU. The Commission's final decision to punish Microsoft has been seen by many as a "victory" against a foreign and greedy multinational, Monti as some sort of "hero"... Yet I cannot see the ground for inflicting to MS the payment of 497.2 M €, and in my opinion stating such arguments does not account favourably to anyone, and least to all to an high-ranked commissioner. For what is so evil in MS's act? To include its media player in the suits it provides You with its OS? C'mon! Anyone can download such players for free from the internet, so what difference it makes if MS does not give it to You on the first hand and You just DL it a minute after setting up Your internet connection (BTW I do not like WMP and one of the first thing I did was to DL another one)? OK!, the windows media files are not portable e.g. in a MacOS? Hence MS is using its dominant position in the OS market to enforce its position in the media one?!? No! Rather ...hence everybody is making .avi and .mp3 files! As for the streams, any site which sells them is not so stupid to limit its offer to the WM formats, thus preventing potential customer from buying -- the MS's policy to keep its media formats not-portable is rather providing space for competitors! But it is also to be remembered that before focusing on WMP the Commission considered IE, also on the ground that, it being provided with the OS, was spoiling the market...
My personal opinion is that those arguments are not the cause of the decision, that it is rather a matter of politics -- too many just wanted to punish a powerfull and American company... which is sad to say... , this was just the right occasion. Of course there were many factors pushing in that direction -- some being an ill-conceived defence of "our" industry, pride (at the European level, but also, and even more, at the national level -- UE is not so united after all), and an ineliminable hatred against the USA by the left parties... when these forces sum they may accomplish...
Only then come the arguments to provide a rationale to justify a decision already taken.
And this is not an uncommon practice, I do NOT want to get out of the scope of this thread, but just let me observe that (again in my opinion) the reports provided by the American Administration on the Iraq's WMD played a similar role (and therfore it does not matter if they proved largely wrong) of Monti's arguments vs MS. The decision to attack Iraq was taken on different grounds than WMD, in a word on geopolitical grounds. The reports on WMD were published with the aim to... yes! also to influence the public opinion... but mainly to argument against the objections of the other members of the Security Council, France and Russia in primis (which were against the war not because of "pacifism", but to defend the contracts they made with Saddam during the embargo. And BTW the possibility that the embargo could be lifted by the efforts of these contries in the ONU was one of the causes of the war). In this respect those reports (and also the clear statement that the US were going to do it anyway) were at least effective...
Umm... I got quite too far... anyway, what I mean is essentially that that decision (referring to the EU's one) was taken, that discussing the arguments is unusefull (if You are not a lawyer paid by Bill) as they do not really matter (they are "formalities"), that MS will survive and fare well, and finally that all of this will likely not make a great difference to anyone of us.
P.S. sorry 'bout my english.

DevilHacker
12-22-2005, 05:28 PM
Disgusting.
Agreed!

:thumbsup:

[Start Ranting]
Wow!
And they say Americans are outlandish!
Why should Microsoft Open up its software to other companies if they do not want to!
No one is forcing people to use Windows. If they don’t like it, just switch to Mac or Linux. Easy as that.
[Stop Ranting]

Para
12-22-2005, 06:42 PM
It would be easy for a company like HP, Dell or Gateway to include a Firefox browser and a RealPlayer with every Windows machine, but Microsoft won't let them.

Some of them do bundle that shi...nice software, especially Real Networks stuff and suprise suprise, people won't use them since compared to what comes with Windows as native those bundled programs usually suck more.

What I'd like to see would be that EU would "vote with it's wallet" and stop using MS-based systems if they clearly don't like 'em. There's no point in harrassing a company with this kind of special taxes (yes, that's what I call this) when they could do more damage to MS just by stop using their software.


Wow. Europe is stupid.

Well, old news.

Finland passed a law earlier this year which now simply states that converting audio CD:s to mp3:s is illegal, no matter what. :argh:

Gein
12-22-2005, 06:48 PM
Could somebody explain to me why this discussion turned to be about WMP, IE and uninstalling components from Windows?

If you look here (ArsTechnica) (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051222-5822.html), it's clear that the EU is upset not about the bundling, witch they conformed to with Windows N, but about Microsoft not opening their system to let them interface with others.

The current problem goes back the sanctions laid on Microsoft last year (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050124-4547.html), in which they agreed to three things: pay a fine, unbundle software from Windows, and disclose information about their server products. They were given until December 15, 2005 to comply, but the EU claims that the company's only batting two for three. The fine was duly paid and Windows XP N was duly produced (even if no one wanted it (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2005/11/20/1883)), but the server information has come up short (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm).

So, did I miss anything? :shrug:

jcorpe
12-22-2005, 06:50 PM
Next thing you'll know is that Microsoft will have to bundle all other competitor's players in their OS while leaving their own player out.

Lordiego01
12-22-2005, 07:17 PM
I just wanted to clarify..

I said Disgusting because they are making them open up their technologies to their competitors. If you don't like Microsoft, then either ban it from your country, or make a better alternative. If you can't go with either one of these choices, then STFU.

I don't know about you guys, but I prefer a true free market instead of this communist/socialist crap thats is ever so popular in the US and EU.

CupOWonton
12-22-2005, 07:29 PM
Ya know, I dont like Microsoft too much. Mainly because of what they do to EVERYTHING they touch. They began screwing up the game industry when they started buying out game companies and making them mainly X-Box exclusive, and they knowingly produce faulty software or software with known security risks.
But even so, they cant be TOLD to release ALL INFORMATION on their product so the compedators can essentialy copy everything out of Windows. Thats like if someone demanded that I give them my 3d files so they can figure out how I render and modle things, so they can go and copy my work. And then FINE ME FOR IT for every day I dont comply.
Thats just STUPID.

MarGera
12-22-2005, 07:37 PM
Why is it disgusting? Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist, as was the verdict of the Department Of Justice case in the United States.

Given this kind of behavior, it's proper for our European friends to slap big fines on Microsoft, who must be taught not to abuse its monopoly.

I am sorry but it is too easy to just focus on MS all the time. There is much more important problems in this world, then a company that has had to build them selfs up from nothing.

Fides
12-22-2005, 07:39 PM
Could somebody explain to me why this discussion turned to be about WMP, IE and uninstalling components from Windows?

From the EU Commission press release:The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players.

So 'interfacing with others' covers the EU's concerns.

this communist/socialist crap thats is ever so popular in the US and EU.

The US?! What? Is there a greater Capitalist economy than the US?

As I recall, the US Dept of Justice's action against Microsoft had more to do with blatant anti-competitive behavior on the part of Microsoft with regards to distributors, like Dell and HP. MS threatened them if they shipped other software with their PC's. The European case seems to me to be a different animal altogether. Microsoft simply doesn't want to make it easy to use software other than their own.

And the French and Germans wonder why they have 10%+ unemployment. Would you wanna set up shop over there with Big Brother EU meddling in your affairs all the time?

CupOWonton
12-22-2005, 07:39 PM
I am sorry but it is too easy to just focus on MS all the time. There is much more important problems in this world, then a company that has had to build them selfs up from nothing.

Actualy they built themselves from APPLE... but, point well taken.

parallax
12-22-2005, 07:47 PM
And the French and Germans wonder why they have 10%+ unemployment. Would you wanna set up shop over there with Big Brother EU meddling in your affairs all the time?

Hahaha! that's pure solid gold, coming from someone living in the country that has anything BUT the use of 'newspeak' set in stone.

Seriously, stop the socialist/communist BS. You lot have no idea what you are talking about, let alone know the definition of the word 'socialist'

Fides
12-22-2005, 07:54 PM
Seriously, stop the socialist/communist BS. You lot have no idea what you are talking about, let alone know the definition of the word 'socialist'

I didn't say anything about communism or socialism.

Anyway current French unemployment is 9.7%( oops! ) (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/11/30/afx2359791.html) and Germany is 10.9% (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2005/12/01/ap2362382.html)

Incoherent indeed.

CupOWonton
12-22-2005, 07:54 PM
Hahaha! that's pure solid gold, coming from someone living in the country that has anything BUT the use of 'newspeak' set in stone.

Seriously, stop the socialist/communist BS. You lot have no idea what you are talking about, let alone know the definition of the word 'socialist'

Ya know what, in highschool I doodled in english and government classes, so I never realy remember anything, but I bet Socialism has something to do with the government controlling most/all form of distribution in an economy along with dictating/planning how everything should be run. And a Socialist is someone who works for or lives for that economy.

If so, then, yeah, Big Brother EU was a rather appropriate jab at the situation.

Realy though, in general, every country's government is "big brother" these days.

Beamtracer
12-22-2005, 08:07 PM
For what is so evil in MS's act? To include its media player in the suits it provides You with its OS? C'mon!

Microsoft's "evil" act (as you put it) was not just to simply include its media player with its OS. No, Microsoft went much further than that, and actively made threats against PC hardware companies that dared to include other software.

This is outrageous behavior!

The main losers where Real Networks and Apple, both 100% American companies.

Anyone can download such players for free from the internet, so what difference it makes if MS does not give it to You on the first hand
It's not true that anyone can download the alternate players. There's a substantial percentage of the population who never download software and don't know how. They stick with whatever software was already on their computer.

http://www.totalmedia.com/images/godzilla-1954-photo2.jpg

Microsoft has a long and famous history of crushing other companies and competitors. But despite Microsoft already being convicted as a monopolist in the United States, the company continues to behave like Godzilla and crush more competitors (mostly American).

If Microsoft is forced to behave fairly, the resulting increased competition in the software market will be to the benefit of Windows users.

tozz
12-22-2005, 08:25 PM
There's more software for Windows getting available every single day, why is it up to Microsoft to include it? I would love to see a fully stripped Windows (by default, it's possible anyway) but then they would get sued for not including software, lovely.
As for the acts of threats they should pay, like Intel it should be delt with accordingly.

parallax
12-22-2005, 08:26 PM
I didn't say anything about communism or socialism.

Anyway current French unemployment is 9.7%( oops! ) (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/11/30/afx2359791.html) and Germany is 10.9% (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2005/12/01/ap2362382.html)

Incoherent indeed.

My post was partly directed at you and others, but anyway, you DONT want me to start posting figures about the US economy, or any stats about the US at all.

Ever heard of the petrodollar?

gruvsyco
12-22-2005, 08:52 PM
Microsoft's "evil" act (as you put it) was not just to simply include its media player with its OS. No, Microsoft went much further than that, and actively made threats against PC hardware companies that dared to include other software.

This is outrageous behavior!

The main losers where Real Networks and Apple, both 100% American companies.
This is called protecting your interests. If you can't afford to compete, maybe you shouldn't be in the game. Companies go under all the time in every industry... hell going back to the dawn of time, they called it survival of the fittest.

I have no sympathy for either Real or Apple. Apple is more controlling than MS has ever been, you can only run their OS on their hardware and they have aquired companies and killed off the Windows version even though it had a loyal fan base (Logic comes to mind). Real has been tracking user info through their player for years, they can rot in hell for that.

Not that it was mentioned but just a side note that if Sun had won the great computer war, we wouldn't even have any software other than Java on our machines.. they've always pushed for server side applications.


It's not true that anyone can download the alternate players. There's a substantial percentage of the population who never download software and don't know how. They stick with whatever software was already on their computer.
yes, ANYONE can download an alternate player... some just don't bother (hell WMP fits 99.9% of my audio needs, on a very very rare occasion I get a .pls that I use Winamp to open) or they don't take the time to learn how to do stuff like download other software. It's probably a fair assumption that for most people, WMP just gets the job done.

Microsoft has a long and famous history of crushing other companies and competitors. But despite Microsoft already being convicted as a monopolist in the United States, the company continues to behave like Godzilla and crush more competitors (mostly American).

If Microsoft is forced to behave fairly, the resulting increased competition in the software market will be to the benefit of Windows users.
That's one perspective, I see it as MS forcing companies to either get better and more competitive or die. If it weren't for the aggressive nature of some leading the pack, the entire world would be filled with a bunch of complacent people/companies that would never really strive for improvement. How do you define "crushing a competitor"? Their acquistions of other companies seem to seldom equal the death of that technology. MS has the capitol and strength to take any technology beyond that of smaller companies. The people that owned the companies previously probably made a pretty good chunk of cash as well as an exchange of stock in MS as well.

Fides
12-22-2005, 08:53 PM
My post was partly directed at you and others, but anyway, you DONT want me to start posting figures about the US economy, or any stats about the US at all.

Ever heard of the petrodollar?

Post away. I don't care.

And yes I've heard of the petrodollar. If you've ever driven a car, you've spent one. Don't know what it has to do with the topic, which is Microsoft and the EU, but whatever.

xino
12-22-2005, 09:00 PM
My post was partly directed at you and others, but anyway, you DONT want me to start posting figures about the US economy, or any stats about the US at all.

Ever heard of the petrodollar?

Your blanket anti-US sentiments and statements are getting rather old and I for one say they should stop. The US economy, politics, and citizens have nothing to do with this topic.

Back on topic:

The EU constantly states that this is for the european consumers, yet they're being paid by MS competitors in the EU market to follow these suits. If the consumers wanted this, they would actually ask for it. They should have a vote, and I'm fairly certain of what the outcome would be.

This has nothing to do with any monopoly (or lack thereof) whatsoever.

I can guarantee you that if the US govt. fined Mercedes-Benz or Aston Martin to open up their design and production houses, the EU would cry bloody murder.

The EU is just trying to get money for the people that are lining its pockets, which are direct MS competitors. How anyone can rationalize this any other way is beyond me. No software company has ever had to open up its own code base to pacify the competition. If this rulement is allowed to pass, they should go against Apple since they are the most closed off with their code than any other business. In fact, in recent years, MS is working more and more with the open-source community to get underground projects out there for more consumers.

EU is really stretching it's legal standing these days. If MS were smart, they would pull all of their products from any country under EU control and we'll see how the consumers feel then. The EU would fall shortly thereafter.

DizzyJ
12-22-2005, 09:26 PM
Your blanket anti-US sentiments and statements are getting rather old and I for one say they should stop. The US economy, politics, and citizens have nothing to do with this topic.


Hmm... post after post bashes the EU, often on the sketchiest of terms. But when someone who lives in the EU suggests that the US isn't better, he's issuing off-the topic, anti-US sentiments? If you had stayed on-track after this and discussed the merit of the case, rather than more anti-EU garbage, I might have been convinced.

The wording of the EU release makes the bundling issue seem sketchy, but claiming that MS hasn't consistantly abused it's monopoly throughout it's existance is naive. They've used everything from threats against PC makers to stop them from distributing rival OSes to illegal hiring of substantial numbers of employees from rival firms to prevent other companies from competing with them.

Free markets only work when the government sufficiently protects competition. If not, the advantages of free markets disappate as monopolies drive out competition. Regulating is a hellishly hard thing to do well, but must be done if we're to see innovation.

ShadowHunter
12-22-2005, 09:41 PM
Hmm, too much politics in this thread. Thy doom is near.

Of course the law suit and ruling is rediculous. No company should have to reveal its trade secrets and/or IP. If the documentation is bad (which it's not. MS's documentation of its OSs is the best around. That's why there are so many developers for Windows), it'll only hurt MS. So no need to fine. Every ole OS comes with a media player. Every ole company does not bundle the competition's products with its own products. (That's not even true, my lappy's XP was bundled with the competitions sh***y soft... erm, I mean really bloated... erm *cough*spyware*cough*)

So why is MS getting sued and not just about any other company? Do I really have to answer that one :scream:

mustique
12-22-2005, 09:52 PM
EU wants money. Be it by MS itself or by keeping money within the EU,
with possible european WinOS distro firms.

EU countries want WinOs distros to be able to rewrite the code as needed and trusted.

But none of this might happen.

Cause WinOS (distros) might be the most useless and worthless OSes
once everybody knows the sourcecode. (some people think it already is)

Of course EU might just want MS to die. Which is an even more funky conspiracy story. :D

jbo
12-22-2005, 10:17 PM
Hmm... post after post bashes the EU, often on the sketchiest of terms. But when someone who lives in the EU suggests that the US isn't better, he's issuing off-the topic, anti-US sentiments?

yes. whether the US is or isn't better (and i agree that it isn't) is irrelevent to the topic.

SteelDeath
12-22-2005, 10:25 PM
Why is everybody whining and using arguments like "Stupid Europeans, if you don't like Microsoft, don't use it."

Here's Europes reply to that: "Pay the fine. If you don't like it, go sell Windows someplace else."

Stupid

JeroenDStout
12-22-2005, 10:31 PM
Wow. Europe is stupid.
Yeah, it keeps turning more and more into America :D

Why is everybody whining and using arguments like "Stupid Europeans, if you don't like Microsoft, don't use it."

Here's Europes reply to that: "Pay the fine. If you don't like it, go sell Windows someplace else."
Ooh, cheecky :)

de_tomato
12-23-2005, 02:04 AM
Why is it disgusting? Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist, as was the verdict of the Department Of Justice case in the United States.


Hmm.. perhaps you dont know, theres are other countries beside US. The world doesnt behave just because US *think* so. Just so you know. You get the idea.

Back to topic. I have to agree, this is disgusting. So whats next? They are suing the inventor of the Internet coz it gonna monopoly the media soon?

So as most said, you have a choice. You bought Ms Wnidows, but you dont like whats inside, so whos problem is that? FYI, I am not a fan of any OS, but I choose to use Ms Win. Take it or leave it.

Per-Anders
12-23-2005, 02:18 AM
The last time this happened to Microsoft, they were forced to pay several hundered million to Real Networks. Just think how Europe could help that wonderful Realplayer even more!

Beamtracer
12-23-2005, 02:59 AM
It's amazing how many people think Microsoft should be able to behave in any way it wants.

If you go to any country you must obey the laws of that country (or region). Microsoft breached the corporate laws of both the US and Europe. The only difference is that Europe is going to enforce it.

People forget that in the United States Vs Microsoft trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) the penalty given to Microsoft was for it to be split into at least 2 separate companies. However, a change of government and political influence on the federal courts saw the penalties watered down to almost nothing.

In Europe, the charges against Microsoft have some similarities. As I understand it, Microsoft has been found guilty of altering the Windows API's (Application Programing Interfaces) so that Microsoft server software works fine, but server software from other companies doesn't.

How are you going to get any competition or innovation when Microsoft makes changes to Windows with the intent of sabotaging other companies' software (ie, so that it doesn't perform optimally)??

It's surprising how many people are defending Microsoft's behavior. Europe has demanded that Microsoft give enough information about these OS interfaces to allow other companies to develop their software for the platform. If Microsoft refuses, then they get fined.

Corporate regulation is not a bad thing. If you allow corporations to run amok and behave in any way they want, you'll get more Enrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) and Worldcoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldcom).

Footnote: If the US Department Of Justice did split up Microsoft, Windows users would have been better off, and there would have been more innovation on the Windows platform.

williamsburroughs
12-23-2005, 03:56 AM
Just read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and you will realize what a criminal act the EU is performing.

If I were Microsoft, I'd just close up shop and see what the world would do then. ;)

Cheers,
-policarpo

gruvsyco
12-23-2005, 04:05 AM
Just read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and you will realize what a criminal act the EU is performing.

If I were Microsoft, I'd just close up shop and see what the world would do then. ;)

Cheers,
-policarpo
haha.. that'd be almost funny if it wouldn't destroy the world economy.

Bill Gates (as he's locking the doors): well, it's been fun... what? support?.. nah, you'll be fine, you have linux and open sores.

ThE_JacO
12-23-2005, 04:42 AM
beside the whole MS, Apple, EU, US, AntiEU, AntiUS thing... if there's ONE thing this thread proves, it's that people don't listen, and will just read into an article what they want to read in it.

disclosing trade secrets and giving away IP for free?
Give me a break, the act is about better documentation of the interface of MS media platform so that other people CAN SERVE CONTENTS TO WINDOWS, not open sourcing anything.

did anybody actually take the time to read anything?
if the media corporations elsewhere are happy with going for a full cartel and risking a monopoly ON DISTRIBUTION then it's fine, but apparently the EU, where media cartels are not as large and consolidated as the american giants, doesn't want to see an OS de-facto monopoly to be used unfairly to create more monopolies in OTHER and DIFFERENT fields where not all cards have been played yet.

Digital media management and distribution is still young and open to new players that can only innovate and benefit consumers if they are allowed to interface with all platforms consumers could use, 75% of which happens to be MS already, hence the monopoly in a different field that is being exploited to secure another market.

This is illegal in both the states and Europe by the way, and as blindfolded as you may want to be it's being acted against in the States as well, although not as fervently.

gruvsyco
12-23-2005, 05:12 AM
disclosing trade secrets and giving away IP for free?
Give me a break, the act is about better documentation of the interface of MS media platform so that other people CAN SERVE CONTENTS TO WINDOWS, not open sourcing anything.
Not 100% I'm following what you're saying..

Remedies

In order to restore the conditions of fair competition, the Commission has imposed the following remedies:

* As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.

To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
This seems a bit of shite. MS has itself contributed (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=953EEAC1-4410-4B76-8BCE-672182542EF4) to Open Source and specifically SAMBA. Their Exchange server has the ability to use a web front end and connectivity via POP and IMAP. I don't understand why the would need to comply with opening up their workgroup software beyond that, isn't that pretty much the point of IP? And as far as their SQL servers go, well... it's SQL.

* As regards tying, Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP. The un-tying remedy does not mean that consumers will obtain PCs and operating systems without media players. Most consumers purchase a PC from a PC manufacturer which has already put together on their behalf a bundle of an operating system and a media player. As a result of the Commission's remedy, the configuration of such bundles will reflect what consumers want, and not what Microsoft imposes.

Microsoft retains the right to offer a version of its Windows client PC operating system product with WMP. However, Microsoft must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing. In particular, it must not give PC manufacturers a discount conditional on their buying Windows together with WMP.
I fail to understand why it's even a point of argument that their OS comes bundled with WMP at all. While it does seem a bit controlling that they don't want extra shit installed on their OS at the time of sale, it would seem to me that it's entirely in the hands of the consumer to make that decision once they own it and have agreed to the EULA.

*shrugs* even read it a couple of times

deepcgi
12-23-2005, 05:27 AM
Microsoft has often used the ploy of copy/modify slightly with incompatibilities/rebrand/offer for free - a technique which only works when you have monopoly power. IE itself is a great example of this.

So, monopolies must continuously be tamed. If it weren't so, John Rockefeller would have owned Standard Oil, AT&T, Microsoft, the automobile industry, and the Human Genome by now. More accurately, encompassed them all. He had his monopoly long before Billy Gates was born. He, Paul Allen and all the rest couldn't have hoped for more than working for Rockefeller Inc.

And don't give me the argument the Microsoft is not a monopoly. Rockefeller made the same argument. "There are other oil companies, they don't have to use our services." and "We have a right to make a profit, this is an industry which we pioneered."

Microsoft owes its independent existence to the trust-busters of yesteryear.

Keep them honest or you'll end up kissing their ring.

ThE_JacO
12-23-2005, 05:41 AM
Not 100% I'm following what you're saying..


This seems a bit of shite. MS has itself contributed (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=953EEAC1-4410-4B76-8BCE-672182542EF4) to Open Source and specifically SAMBA. Their Exchange server has the ability to use a web front end and connectivity via POP and IMAP. I don't understand why the would need to comply with opening up their workgroup software beyond that, isn't that pretty much the point of IP? And as far as their SQL servers go, well... it's SQL.


no, no and no :)
NO request was made to disclose CODE.

the problem is that MS' media platform, which is intended to be the tool to use the contents on the receiving end, and is part of a de-facto monopoly (most people use windows and windows media station), requires something on the serving side to comply to certain standards.

that is fine, so do quicktime, realplayer, multiplayer games and everything.
HOWEVER, MS provided misguiding and/or incomplete -documentation- to such interface, meaning that anybody trying to serve to media player that wasn't MS, or using fully MS compliant solutions like win servers, wasn't able to provide contents the way WMP is expecting them if you want to use it to its full potential.

that means that a monopoly on OS is being used to forcefully impose the use of MS products even on the other end of the system, which is not yet a MS monopoly.
and THAT is illegal, in almost all first world countries.

if you want an example related to our industry:
let's say Max takes over all segments of CG production and estabilishes a global user base of 85% in all fields and roughly 98% in film.
Autodesk then wants to also get started a production unit to milk more money off their customers, production being something they never did before.
So they publish an SDK for the latest and greatest max, and intentionally under and mis-document it, so that if you want to get anything done with it you HAVE to also take advantage of their production experts, which, like windows servers won't cut it for everybody, could very well be people that know their stuff but that don't even speak the same language of your employees.

how would that go down with you?

would you say it'd be fair to ask autodesk to publish BETTER DOCUMENTATION about the SDK and inner workings of it so that you can get things done without giving them more money? and this DOES NOT mean asking them to reveal all their security holes, nor any of the algorithmical solutions they perfected or even the way they actually wrap their data, just asking them to document things so that everybody can use them.

and before everybody goes into whining about QT and RealMedia (I'm no apple fan and I absolutely hate realmedia for the record), their interfaces and documentation are vastly superior and easier to deal with, and to serve contents to, then WMP's.
such a shame, because as bloated as WMP could be, it's a solid player with a sleeve of features not present anywhere else, but there's a reason if you haven't seen those features used by people other then a small bunch.


I fail to understand why it's even a point of argument that their OS comes bundled with WMP at all. While it does seem a bit controlling that they don't want extra shit installed on their OS at the time of sale, it would seem to me that it's entirely in the hands of the consumer to make that decision once they own it and have agreed to the EULA.

*shrugs* even read it a couple of times

that is a whole different matter, and a much more complex one, one about which I have mixed feelings myself, so I won't even get there.
but THIS ONE thread is about -interfacing with media player and serving contents to it-

gruvsyco
12-23-2005, 05:57 AM
Not going to argue what your saying TheJaco... I just cant find anywhere in the links posted that mentions that specifically. The links I found in this thread are as follows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en#file.tmp_Foot_1
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051222-5822.html

They all seem to address MS and their workgroup server platform and the bundling of WMP with the OS which is what I addressed in my last post.

having said that, I'm going to make an attempt to bail out of this whole debate. While it may seem it from my posts, I am not pro MS, I am not pro corporate practices/ethics. I do oppose pointless litigation and misrepresentation of opinion as fact as seem to happen so much in these anti-MS threads (not targetted at you by any means).

ThE_JacO
12-23-2005, 06:03 AM
Not going to argue what your saying TheJaco... I just cant find anywhere in the links posted that mentions that specifically. The links I found in this thread are as follows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en#file.tmp_Foot_1
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051222-5822.html

They all seem to address MS and their workgroup server platform and the bundling of WMP with the OS which is what I addressed in my last post.


exactly, WMP to ram a majorly flawed server platform down the market's throat, that's what it's all about ;)


having said that, I'm going to make an attempt to bail out of this whole debate. While it may seem it from my posts, I am not pro MS, I am not pro corporate practices/ethics. I do oppose pointless litigation and misrepresentation of opinion as fact as seem to happen so much in these anti-MS threads (not targetted at you by any means).

I wasn't addressing you in particular, nor found you to be too biased in any direction, which is why I quoted your posts.
If I quoted the posts of the comunism fearing paranoid muppets, or one of the many people who suffer for a brand loyalty more fierce then the love of their families, it probably would have gone awry.

I'm out of this too anyway, if people subconsciusly misread articles, quotes and news reports, then my posts will probably either be misread or ignored anyway, I have no hope that some people with an IQ lower then their shoesize will ever manage to pull their head out of their arse. It's been shoved there too deeply for some ;)

parallax
12-23-2005, 07:47 AM
Your blanket anti-US sentiments and statements are getting rather old and I for one say they should stop. The US economy, politics, and citizens have nothing to do with this topic.


It was a gut reaction to all the misinformed propaganda spewed by people who think randomly labeling people (or a whole continent for that matter) greedy and socialist, (contracdictio intermini anyone) because some people don't follow the agenda 'the powers that be' like to see.

I apologize for any runaway anti americanism.

tozz
12-23-2005, 09:45 AM
It would be nice with some proof here. I get better perfomance using non-MS products for every single thing I can do on my computer (especially media), according to this I shouldn't... interesting :)

EU shouldn't really scream "monopoly", it's the worst monopoly driven "company" of them all. Looking into the interest of 3-5big coutries on the expense of the rest. I know politics should stay at the door, but it's hard not bring it up when this obvious this isn't about customers but rather getting the people on high horses in EU another salary boost.

Beamtracer
12-23-2005, 10:41 AM
So, what's the worst cast scenario for Microsoft?

They are forced to give some information (regarding their APIs) that allows other companies to create compatible products? That doesn't sound too bad for Windows users. More companies making more software sounds like a good thing.

Windows users should be clapping their hands at this development. :applause: :applause: :applause:

mustique
12-23-2005, 02:24 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28520

MS' answer shows that EU might be after the sourcecode.

xino
12-23-2005, 04:37 PM
Hmm... post after post bashes the EU, often on the sketchiest of terms. But when someone who lives in the EU suggests that the US isn't better, he's issuing off-the topic, anti-US sentiments? If you had stayed on-track after this and discussed the merit of the case, rather than more anti-EU garbage, I might have been convinced.

The EU isn't exactly a government nor does it represent its peoples in those countries. There is a huge difference between the EU and the American/UK/Australian governments. Furthermore, it doesn't even represent all of the European countries. The voting for EU Constitution has been sketchy at best. Also in recent polls it's been shown that some European countries don't even care about the EU in any way. Which leads us to being back on topic...

The EU in this decision is working for the companies putting extra money in their pockets, not for the people like they constantly say. It's underhanded the way they're acting to say the least.

Also the person in question has made several anti-US statements in this forum lately. I was reffering to the comments as a whole.

It was a gut reaction to all the misinformed propaganda spewed by people who think randomly labeling people (or a whole continent for that matter) greedy and socialist, (contracdictio intermini anyone) because some people don't follow the agenda 'the powers that be' like to see.

I apologize for any runaway anti americanism.

Apologies accepted here.

For those saying "if you want to sell in a different country, you have to follow the laws."

Perhaps you should remember that Microsoft up until now has done everything the EU has asked for, but they keep asking MS to do more. No company in history has had to bend to so many "laws". These "laws" also only exist for MS, since I don't see them chasing after any other company. Microsoft isn't the only one with closed sourcecode. People for years have been able to make better media players for Windows. Why do these EU developers suddenly "need" the source code to make better alternatives? Better alternatives have always been there. Most users just don't care.

ShadowHunter
12-23-2005, 04:54 PM
disclosing trade secrets and giving away IP for free?
Give me a break, the act is about better documentation of the interface of MS media platform so that other people CAN SERVE CONTENTS TO WINDOWS, not open sourcing anything.
did anybody actually take the time to read anything?
Apperently you're the one who did not read anything. The APIs of Microsft's Windows Media Services (WMS) and Server is freely available and is documented very well. See for yourself, download the PSDK. Right from the horse's mouth:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/sdkintro/devdoc_platform_software_development_kit_start_page.asp

Or I'll just quote for you:
Purpose
Welcome to the Platform Software Development Kit (SDK) documentation. This edition provides information about the application programming interfaces (API) supported by Microsoft Windows.

Target Platforms
This edition of the Platform SDK documentation provides information required to develop applications that can be run on the following target platforms:

Windows Server 2003 R2
Windows Server 2003
64-bit versions of Windows
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Windows NT 4.0
Windows Me, Windows 98, and Windows 95

There's more where that came from.
What the law suit goes after is the internal workings of WMS. That however IS Microsoft's IP. Disclosing that will allow competitors to copy their technology (the law suit calls it allowing the competition to "develop for" the media platform).

no, no and no
NO request was made to disclose CODE.

Actually yes, that's exactly what the mumbojumbo boils down to. Again the API is freely available that's what APIs are there for: to allow developers to write plugins or interface in some other form with the media platform. MS would bite themeselves in the butt if they didnt provide APIs since the shear amount of developers for Windows is what constitutes the OSs success (MS knows that). Clearly the court decided that an interface is not enough, they want details of the internal workings. This is MS's IP.

So, what's the worst cast scenario for Microsoft?

They are forced to give some information (regarding their APIs) that allows other companies to create compatible products? That doesn't sound too bad for Windows users. More companies making more software sounds like a good thing.

Windows users should be clapping their hands at this development. :applause: :applause: :applause:
Yes, except the APIs are already freely available from MSDN. That's what APIs are: Application programming interfaces. In laymens terms: an interface that allows developers (external or internal) to interface/communicate with the application. Get Microsoft's Platform SDK and you're set to develop. Let me say this agian: the APIs are actually very good!

If you actually take the time to read the proceedings in detail, you will see that MS complied with EU's requests, who almost magically kept changing the demands to more and more ridiculous propotions.
MS certainly has been justly fined in the past. However this ruling is just as rediculous as the media player one.

barbapapa
12-23-2005, 05:49 PM
xino....please read Jaco´s post. It doesent has to be with the source code at all. read before you write
To the people tha says "if you dont like microsoft go an use something else" think again, we are a minority on microsoft marketshare. Imean , the majority are people that don know anything else than MS and wouldnt know what to do with linux (and a mac is way to expensive.) think about your mom or someone that the only thing that wants is to write letters and check the email trying to deal with linux.....
Think about this problem like this. Lets say you live in a small town where you only have one supermarket to go. There is nothing else, so you go and buy what you need there. If you dont like what you get, you can always choose to go to other town to other supermarkets to buy your things right? but that means that you have to drive and spend an extra hour just driving and ...uh uh way to many problems to buy some chips.
There is nothing illegal on that, the market on your town is the only one that has invested on being there and there is no problem on being the only one if the others dont come so you can buy from them...Nothing illegal on that
But what if the other ones are not coming because the only supermarket on your town doesent allow them to come for some reason (imagine anything, this is just an example ). That would be illegal. And that is what MS is doing with some competitors
The thing with microsoft and the media players thing is that is taking advantage of its place in the market and of the ignorance of the people. Lets say someone that doesent work with computers buys one. He will use whatever that thing has to play dvds music or what ever. but if doesent has that , he will have to look for it and choose from the market.He will choose the best one or the one he likes, not the one that you use just because is there. Thats one thing. The other one is that microsoft is not giving enough info on the interface of the media platform which is not allowing others to compete on equal conditions....so if you combine this two things what you have is unfair competition. Thats how MS won over netscape and everybody here knows that MS didnt won because of quality


and for the people talking about socialism.... read first and you will see that is not synonym of comunism.. just so you dont go around mixing things and concepts that are wrong

amfantasy
12-23-2005, 11:54 PM
I my self am a Linux user, but I'm "forced" to use windows. but this is really unfair, I don't know who the EU is working for, but it isn't the people.

If linux and apple can put what ever they want in there OS then why can't microsoft. regrading the WMP I feel that they should produce proper codec for some of the other OS. and I.E. is the biggest example of monoply in the world. I work with html and there are a lot of things that are only supported by I.E.

Lastly, I don't think apple is controling the online video, how many people have 3rd party software that plays qt perfect, its even easier to find Linux players

I agree with the smart people here, this is disgusting

Per-Anders
12-24-2005, 01:36 AM
Frankly I'm still amazed that the quality of their documentation is of such an issue that it needs to go to court over. Honeslty it seems more of a milking excercise than based in a humanitarian/anti monopolisation law.

xino
12-24-2005, 06:35 AM
xino....please read Jaco´s post. It doesent has to be with the source code at all. read before you write
To the people tha says "if you dont like microsoft go an use something else" think again, we are a minority on microsoft marketshare. Imean , the majority are people that don know anything else than MS and wouldnt know what to do with linux (and a mac is way to expensive.) think about your mom or someone that the only thing that wants is to write letters and check the email trying to deal with linux.....
Think about this problem like this. Lets say you live in a small town where you only have one supermarket to go. There is nothing else, so you go and buy what you need there. If you dont like what you get, you can always choose to go to other town to other supermarkets to buy your things right? but that means that you have to drive and spend an extra hour just driving and ...uh uh way to many problems to buy some chips.
There is nothing illegal on that, the market on your town is the only one that has invested on being there and there is no problem on being the only one if the others dont come so you can buy from them...Nothing illegal on that
But what if the other ones are not coming because the only supermarket on your town doesent allow them to come for some reason (imagine anything, this is just an example ). That would be illegal. And that is what MS is doing with some competitors
The thing with microsoft and the media players thing is that is taking advantage of its place in the market and of the ignorance of the people. Lets say someone that doesent work with computers buys one. He will use whatever that thing has to play dvds music or what ever. but if doesent has that , he will have to look for it and choose from the market.He will choose the best one or the one he likes, not the one that you use just because is there. Thats one thing. The other one is that microsoft is not giving enough info on the interface of the media platform which is not allowing others to compete on equal conditions....so if you combine this two things what you have is unfair competition. Thats how MS won over netscape and everybody here knows that MS didnt won because of quality


and for the people talking about socialism.... read first and you will see that is not synonym of comunism.. just so you dont go around mixing things and concepts that are wrong

Let me see if I can respond to most of the points you made. First off, MS hasn't stopped anyone from making a better program than WMP. Those that are complaining just can't make one. Don't try and tell me Real is a great tool, because we all know it's not. I won't even go into how illegal Real has been in the past. Quicktime itself is a burgeoning monopoly since you HAVE to download itunes as well and there is no choice to not install itunes. WMP is a great tool for most users. I'm pretty sure that even if WMP wasn't installed by default, most users would choose to install it just as a base media player. Most people use it for only video anyway. Winamp plays MP3s much better in my experience. To each their own.

In your analogy, you use a shopping mart as an example. You still failed on the true issue. No one is stopping anyone from going out of town. Why should the closest super-market care if you have to pay for gas to go to a different store? That just doens't make any sense. You either keep shopping there, go to a different store and complain because everything isn't handed to you on a silver platter, or you move closer to the other store and shut up.

Microsoft has never stopped anyone from making a better product. In alot of terms, they actually encourage their competition more than anyone else would in their right mind. They've invested money and opened up some of their source-code to help opensource communities/competitors. Such as:
Microsoft buying $150 Million in Apple stock:
http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

What people stop to realize is that to make an OS useful and successful, you have to abide to the lowest common denominator. That means you need to make the OS for new users who do not have access to the internet. They are still out there and until access to the 'net becomes free they'll always be there. How many disgruntled customers do you think there would be if WMP wasn't included with the OS? More than quite a few I would imagine. Also you should note that MS and any other OS has a default media player to install when it's first run. People have come to expect this sort of "add-on" from MS and other OS companies by now. If it's not there, there will be less buyers for the OS. They should be able to make the best software possible for as many people as possible without some silly "government" body stepping in telling them no.

When is the last time you heard Pioneer sue Ford because they installed Sony cd players in their cars? Never. Most companies that are in business actually know how to do business.

Netscape lost the browser battle because it was terrible to code for. Users didn't decide the outcome, web developers did.

Also as for the code, I'm the last person to know anything about APIs, code, binary, etc. I freely admit this. But I still don't understand how these companies can say that MS is being unfair when they have other competitors that make better programs/services and they know as much as they do about the Windows platform. It just seems to me like a bunch of sour grapes. They can't code better than MS, so they sue in a little hissy-fit that helps no consumer, but helps them get more money for nothing. I say if you can't code and be competitive, then you need to either a.) go and learn the skills or b.) give up and go the way of the Dodo bird. Survival of the fittest I say. The consumer will ultimately decide what is best for them and for most users, WMP is just perfect and it will likely remain that way.

I constantly think of a quote from the movie Antitrust when issues like these come up:
"Any kid working in a garage anywhere in the world with a good idea can put us out of business."

This is a true statement. Sadly, the kid in the garage in this legal action is Microsoft. WMP is just better than their programs and they can't seem to deal with it rationally, so they retaliate the only way they know how.

Now this is a little off topic, but can someone explain to me how a free media player is losing anything competing against another free media player competitor? I would understand this alot better if we paid for these services, but they're all free! How can someone actually lose when you give it all away? I guess I just don't understand this part of the deal. :shrug:

Mudvin
12-24-2005, 09:29 AM
Microsoft's "evil" act (as you put it) was not just to simply include its media player with its OS. No, Microsoft went much further than that, and actively made threats against PC hardware companies that dared to include other software.

This is outrageous behavior!
The main losers where Real Networks and Apple, both 100% American companies.

Real Media Player? Isn't that that shit, that builts-in itself on installation into every corner of windows? It changes your homepage in browser, adds itself into startup folder, into registry, add icon in tray, dozen icons on desktop, and doing other 10 actions, without even asking - do i really want it? RMP - "fair competitor"? LMAO.
Or maybe AOL with it's billions of cd's sent by post?

Microsoft is just selling a product, and it doesn't want that somebody else adding/removing something to it's OS. It's already given too much freedom to their OEM distributors, allowing them to change some components of OS/change logos.

Byla
12-24-2005, 09:53 AM
hahaha, loving this EU vs USA shit. Americans, dont take it so personaly when EU just wants Microsoft to behave according to their laws. If Microsoft is right here then they will win the whole case, period. If EU is right then EU will win. Thats it. And I am pretty sure that 99 % CG talk readers have no detailed knowledge about the whole thing.

And yeah, please stop with this comunist socialist anti EU propaganda. And read some history and explaination on both terms before throwing em around. World is not black and white or christian and muslim or.... or anti American or pro American.

Fonix
12-24-2005, 10:43 AM
hahaha, loving this EU vs USA shit. Americans, dont take it so personaly when EU just wants Microsoft to behave according to their laws.

No, US government has put way many more restrictions on microsoft then the EU, last I heard Bill gates threatened to move microsoft to Canada when the US government tryed to break up the company.

tozz
12-24-2005, 11:54 AM
"I work with html and there are a lot of things that are only supported by I.E."
What is only supported in IE? Last time I checked it lacked most of the three major browsers. W3 doesn't write browser specific recommendations, and as for now, Gecko is the engine that implements most of them correctly.
There are some things you can do with IE, like using DirectX filters, but that's not about XHTML at all.

rakmaya
12-24-2005, 01:17 PM
Another load of crap. I can't believe people of EU are that stupid. There is no way in Hell MS is opening up its OS. I don't like MS and don't use their OS either. But if they are asking to open up an OS or components for competitors, then that is not right. It is not going to help either. What they have to do is allow hardware vendors to supply other systems with the MS OS. That is going to help. This kind of thing is really bad of any business. MS gets way more market in USA than in EU and I don't think this is going to happen in any extend that EU thinks it would, unless US agrees with EU. I know there are some idots here as well, but don't think they are that stupid.

Bentagon
12-24-2005, 03:12 PM
hahaha, loving this EU vs USA shit. Americans, dont take it so personaly when EU just wants Microsoft to behave according to their laws. If Microsoft is right here then they will win the whole case, period. If EU is right then EU will win. Thats it. And I am pretty sure that 99 % CG talk readers have no detailed knowledge about the whole thing.

And yeah, please stop with this comunist socialist anti EU propaganda. And read some history and explaination on both terms before throwing em around. World is not black and white or christian and muslim or.... or anti American or pro American.I agree completely. A lot of people here seem to be claiming certain things as facts, while they are not. A "fight" between MS vs. EU is most likely something we can't possibly "get" as a whole. It's a government vs. one of the worlds largest companies for christ sake, and they most likely all have many lawyers on this case. To think that we are able to know the ins-and-outs of these things is ignorant. I absolutely have nothing against stating opinions about this case, not at all, but please don't try proove your right or even just explain your opinions without ground or on false facts.

And please, this is an international forum. Don't generalize, and make sure you word it right. Eg. make sure to say EU and not Europe... both are entirely different things, which can lead to misconceptions, and people feeling insulted while that wasn't your intention. Nor is one EU law/lawsuit the EU. Saying EU is socialist or MS is greedy is the easy way out.

I personally believe the EU has a point. I have no problems with certain things MS does (eg. not including WMP in Windows would be tough for a lot of people who aren't as used to the internet as us), but I do think they're crossing certain lines they shouldn't be crossing.

- Benjamin

mummey
12-24-2005, 06:30 PM
No, US government has put way many more restrictions on microsoft then the EU, last I heard Bill gates threatened to move microsoft to Canada when the US government tryed to break up the company.

Umm... No. Upon appeal most of those restrictions were removed and settled. MS basically got off with a slap on the wrist.

CupOWonton
12-24-2005, 08:25 PM
Last I checked, my Windows XP Pro CD didnt jump out of its packaging at best buy, ride a taxi to my house, break in, and install itself on my PC. I put it there. Im pretty sure thats how it works in the Europe as well.

So far, their argument is that Microsoft hasent given them ENOUGH information, when from the looks of every article out there on both shores, the SOURCE CODE is what the companies backing the EU are after. They have NO RIGHT to the source.
M$ may be a company build upon the souls of the damned, but the EU still has no right to try and gain access to the entire M$ windows source code so the other companies can " compete" with them.
My father does networking for overseas companies and he knows damn well MS works fine in France, the Netherlands, the UK, Spain, India, China, Japan, and Kuala Lumpur for christs sake. These companies are just trying to get a handle on the source.

Its like if someone had a print of my work over in Europe was DEMANDING I send them my 3dsmax files with all my custom textures and my max8 lisence to them so they could rip it appart and figure out how I made everything so they can have someone else compete with or just modify the work and sell it off as an original. And if I didnt give them access to all my work, they would fine me $200 a day for not complying.

amfantasy
12-24-2005, 11:46 PM
last time I remember samba was doing a lot better then the windows work groups, and mircosoft can not relase there source code, It's a long process

Mudvin
12-25-2005, 12:51 AM
Actually there's still no any decent computer browsers available, and samba is almost useless without them...

amfantasy
12-25-2005, 12:56 AM
Actually there's still no any decent computer browsers available, and samba is almost useless without them...

are we talking about the same samba (http://us5.samba.org/samba/)

shuggie
12-25-2005, 12:57 AM
If you want to trade in another country you have to play by their rules and suck it up, or get out, its that simple. The USA doesn't rule the world nor does any large corporation.

I cannot fathom why Microsoft can't provide a version of windows minus WMP (alongside the standard edition) for the european territory, its not as though its a hugely demanding arduous thing to ask for, if they get fined because they continue to ignore the ruling then I think thats fair enough.

Also as far as the source code goes, the way I'm reading it, is that Microsoft have to licence technology that falls under trade secrets (as opposed to patented stuff) due to the fact that they have such an exceptional proportion of the market (so thats hardly handing their source code out to anyone, but to other paying companies). Now of course that is hardly in Microsofts greater interest, but to be honest it sounds like its in my interest, its sounds like it could improve competition, so therefore I hope it happens.

To those who say it is unfair, this is being applied to other sectors of trade in the EU where there are monopolies, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply to MS.

ShadowHunter
12-25-2005, 04:25 AM
I cannot fathom why Microsoft can't provide a version of windows minus WMP (alongside the standard edition) for the european territory, its not as though its a hugely demanding arduous thing to ask for, if they get fined because they continue to ignore the ruling then I think thats fair enough.
They have. It's called Windows XP N. The reason you don't see it is because no store will carry it:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-5960750.html

Goes to show how idiotic the ruling was in the first place. What a phaenomenal waste of MS's resources. I'll not go into politics, but it goes to show that not all things "are for a reason" even if it comes from some governmental body or large corporation. And "To think that we are able to know the ins-and-outs of these things is ignorant" is actually trying to be objective.

Also as far as the source code goes, the way I'm reading it, is that Microsoft have to licence technology that falls under trade secrets (as opposed to patented stuff) due to the fact that they have such an exceptional proportion of the market (so thats hardly handing their source code out to anyone, but to other paying companies). Now of course that is hardly in Microsofts greater interest, but to be honest it sounds like its in my interest, its sounds like it could improve competition, so therefore I hope it happens.

To those who say it is unfair, this is being applied to other sectors of trade in the EU where there are monopolies, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply to MS.
Well yes the competition will benefit the consumer, I won't deny that. And opening anything up will bring in competition. However if you at some point come up with an ingenious invention, and someone steals it from you, you will have to compete with them. It will benefit the consumer no doubt sice they will get a choice. Fair? You certainly won't feel that way.

What's fair in MS giving up its intellectual property to other companies so that they can copy their hard labour? Perhaps you should be more critical of this ruling, if anything at least because of the cleary rediculous media player ruling not too long ago from the same governing body.

Para
12-25-2005, 08:00 AM
last time I remember samba was doing a lot better then the windows work groups, and mircosoft can not relase there source code, It's a long process

I'm not an expert in this (although I should be...sleeping in school wasn't the wisest thing I've done in my past ;)) but what about Active Directory?

Mudvin
12-25-2005, 09:22 AM
are we talking about the same samba

Yes. It's a set of a daemon and number of utilities. MS Windows with it's explorer interface to network clearly much more useful, then these utilities.
The only thing i like in samba is it's ability to mount shares into unix fs, and then make directory with that number of mounted shares, share itself. Like MS DFS. But it's not in any way faster then MS one.

Beamtracer
12-25-2005, 10:07 AM
They have. It's called Windows XP N. The reason you don't see it is because no store will carry it:
I think the EU had good intentions by requiring Microsoft to release a WMP-less Windows. It's just the method didn't work.

The "mom & pop" computer buyers probably don't buy Win XP off the shelf. Only the geeks do that. Mom & pop get Windows pre-installed when they buy their computer. And they never change it after that. That's why the EU ruling to ship Windows-N didn't work.

There needs to be some way to encourage computer hardware manufacturers to pre-install other media players. It would be good to see all computers ship with 3 different media players pre-installed. Then people could choose.

tozz
12-25-2005, 10:21 AM
People actually want to bloat Windows even more?
So ok, what other players should be there? We can exclude Real Player and Quicktime right from the start since their support is ... well, non existant.
What about Zoom Player? A excellent player, shareware if you want to play dvd though, and the same for protected WMP clips.
VLC is a nice alternative, too bad the GUI isn't for mom and dad, so guess we'll just add another support line then.
This isn't about consumers at all, since everyone who wants a new media player will get one, and those who want to remove WMP will do so, the rest just don't care. It seems EU just don't have a clue what they want and are throwing random requests at Microsoft hoping they'll get some cash back.

efbie
12-25-2005, 03:12 PM
Is there any people in here actually understanding what we are talking about ?

EU is not asking MS to realease their sourcecode !

Eu is asking MS to allow competitors to interoperate with them !

MS is keeping secret how things like NTFS, doc document and server protocols works, and keep changing them so that competitors aren't able to release compatible products.

this is what EU is fighting. And it will benefit us all, so i really don't know what's stupid about it.

AndrewRaZ
12-25-2005, 04:33 PM
anyone remember the american ruling a couple years ago that said that microsoft was unfairly monopolizing the market with its ms office products (word, etc.) because the developers had access to the windows internals and could make it work better with windows (much like IE) than their competitors. so, a court ruled that they had to provide the same access to competitors to even the field. i can't remember the specifics of the ruling, but that's what i remember of it.

Para
12-25-2005, 06:05 PM
MS is keeping secret how things like NTFS, doc document and server protocols works, and keep changing them so that competitors aren't able to release compatible products.

Lets see...NTFS is going to get replaced/covered by WinFS which will be an open API once it's finished some time after Vista ships, the new XML-based Office document files (doc, xls etc.) are open as is and the (final) documentation should be out when Office 12 ships, server protocols are covered with iirc Indigo which ships with Vista...

So the answers for your three examples are Vista, Vista, Vista. One rather stupid name but has a lot more to it than just an eyecandy UI.

CGTalk Moderation
12-25-2005, 06:05 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.