- Related Stories
-
Microsoft awaits word on EU fine
July 11, 2006 -
EC to decide Microsoft's fate by mid-July
June 6, 2006 -
Judge adds two years to Microsoft antitrust deal
May 17, 2006 -
Judge blocks Microsoft 'end-run' in EU antitrust case
April 21, 2006 -
Europe: Microsoft still out of compliance
March 10, 2006 -
Europe plays hardball with Microsoft
March 24, 2004
The European Commission issued the 280.5 million euro fine for the period between Dec. 16 and June 20. That figure amounts to a daily fine of 1.5 million euros, which the Commission is prepared to increase to up to 3 million euros per day if the software giant does not come into full compliance beginning July 31.
"I don't buy Microsoft's line that they didn't know what was being asked of them because the March 2004 order is absolutely crystal clear," Neelie Kroes, who heads the Commission's antitrust bureau as its competition commissioner, said Wednesday at a press conference in Brussels. "And in order to increase the incentive for Microsoft to comply, the Commission has decided the ceiling for potential fines will be raised."
While the fine is steep, Microsoft would have no trouble paying it. For the first three months of 2006, the company pocketed profits of nearly $3 billion on sales of $11 billion, meaning the proposed fine amounts to about 10 days' worth of profits.
The fine was based on the landmark 2004 ruling, which, among other requirements, ordered Microsoft to share complete and accurate interoperability information with rival companies that develop workgroup server operating systems, as well as license those protocols at a reasonable cost.
News.com Poll
Frustrated with Microsoft's progress, or the lack thereof, the Commission last year issued a Dec. 15 deadline and threatened to fine the software maker up to 2 million euros a day until it achieved full compliance.
"I regret that, more than two years after the decision, and despite an order from the president of the Court of First Instance that the Microsoft appeal to the court does not suspend Microsoft's obligation to comply, Microsoft has still not put an end to its illegal conduct," Kroes said in a statement issued before the press conference.
Microsoft plans to appeal the new fine to the Court of First Instance.
"We have great respect for the Commission and this process, but we do not believe any fine, let alone a fine of this magnitude, is appropriate given the lack of clarity in the Commission's original decision and our good-faith efforts over the past two years," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, said during Microsoft's separate press conference early Wednesday in Redmond, Wash.
Although Microsoft disagrees with the Commission's characterization of its efforts over the past two years, Smith added he is encouraged by recent events.
In April, the Commission's monitoring trustee, Neil Barrett, met with Microsoft. They developed a template for the software maker to enter batches of protocols and created a schedule of deadlines. The templates call for each protocol to start the same way, with a glossary, section on reference works, description of the protocol and how it relates to other protocols, Smith said.
Seven milestone dates were established, with six batches of protocols to be delivered by June 30 and the seventh on the interim date of July 18, with a hard deadline of July 24.
Video:
EU fines Microsoft again
Neelie Kroes, Europe's competition commissioner, announces the ruling against Microsoft.
Under this system, Microsoft received feedback from the trustee's team on each batch of protocols submitted, as to whether it was sufficient or needed more changes, said Tom Brookes, a Microsoft spokesman.
Barrett initially found the batches of protocols below par. But since June 20--which is end date for the new fine--Barrett that found Microsoft has been doing an "extremely good job, and 50 percent of the documents are there," Kroes said. The six batches of protocols already due have all been turned in.
Barrett's team has approved the final stage of one protocol, Smith noted, and an additional 16 revised drafts have been accepted by his team.
"We are encouraged by the Commission's comment that our recent work is 'extremely good,'" Smith said. "In our view, the issue has never been about compliance but clarity. Having gotten clarity from the Commission in April, we have met every deadline since then. And our top priority is to meet the final deadline in two weeks."
Microsoft has paid a pretty penny in the last few years settling notable legal cases, largely on antitrust issues.
$1.95 billion Sun Microsystems
$850 million IBM
$750 million AOL Time Warner
$536 million Novell
$460 million RealNetworks
$440 million InterTrust Technologies
$150 million Gateway
$32 million South Korea
$23 million Be
Source: CNET News.com research
Within the next two weeks, Barrett and his team will also begin testing the remaining documents for their accuracy and completeness, a process that is expected to last at least a month.
"Microsoft has told me they are now devoting substantial resources to compliance," Kroes said. "It is a great pity they didn't do this two years ago...If they had begun in earnest (then), the burden on Microsoft's staff would have been much lighter."
Microsoft contends that it is willing to abide by the order but did not receive clarification on the documentation requirements until April. After that, with the aid of the trustee's template, the software giant threw more than 300 employees onto the project to meet the final deadline for the seventh milestone, Smith said.
Once all the information has been checked for accuracy and completeness by the Commission, Microsoft will calculate the licensing fees. The Commission will review those terms for "reasonableness."
As a result, the Commission's new fine focuses only on the interoperability issue and not on another part of the 2004 order that called for "reasonable" licensing terms.
Neelie Kroes
The Commission is allowed to fine companies up to 5 percent of their average daily return based on their performance for the previous year, which for Microsoft would be 4.28 million euros. But the Commission has opted to stay below that threshold.
The 2004 order affects not only Microsoft's actions in relation to workgroup servers, Kroes noted, but also its other areas of business. She added that she informed Microsoft a couple of months ago that the general principles of the 2004 order apply to the upcoming Vista operating system, for example.
"The launch of Vista next year will hopefully take all this into account," Kroes said.
See more CNET content tagged:
fine,
commission,
euro,
antitrust,
press conference

money. Still, this is just a peanut fine, not likely to make MS turn
honest.
The fact is that this case is wrong. Mac OS, Linux, UNIX, SunOS and Windows all talk together over a network. Microsoft and Sun have even come to their own settlement. Why should Microsoft hand over their source code to competitors?
It might take a bit longer for MS as there are a lot of smaller users, but it is the big enterprises that hold the whip and like way back in the 80s, they won't want to be associated with a company that gets publicly punished for this type of behaviour.
Once a few big enterprises with moral leaders desert this company it doesn't take long for the rest to follow suit. It only took about 3 years for IBM to go under the bottom line, so MS has to modify its lose lose behaviour or face the inevitable consequences.
Why aren't they crawling all over Airbus? If there is ANYTHING in the world that is non-competitive, it is Airbus. That stupid new plane of theirs is such a hunk of bad engineering that they can't even get it off the ground. If Boeing pulled off something so stupid, they'd be out of business... but not Airbus. France will just loan them more money to throw away.
the EU should stop attacking successful American Companies and focus on their own noncompetitive businesses.
"The fine was based on the landmark 2004 ruling, which, among other requirements, ordered Microsoft to share complete and accurate interoperability information with rival companies that develop workgroup server operating systems, as well as license those protocols at a reasonable cost."
The 2004 ruling also required Microsoft to unbundled Media Player from Windows. Has Media Player stopped Apple from dominating the digital media market - even on Windows machines? Microsoft now sells a version of Windows without Media Player. No one wants that version, since everyone (except the EU) knows how to install iTunes and QuickTime Player.
So, interoperability is a non-issue, and Media Player is a non-issue. Is the EU just bad at writing software, or just greedy?
I wonder why they wouldn't?
Or why not, simply use Windows for free? If Microsoft want's to stop selling software in Europe, let they do it. Let it all be free! :)
premier guest the Communist Chinese Chairman at his mansion on
Lake Washington in Seattle in 2007?
Is THAT OK?
EU is balking at our stalling tactics, if we lose Europe, let's go to
Communist China with BILLIONS of new customers...
I'm really sick of supporting Apple's monopoly and anti-competitive practices, using its operating system power to bundle in media services that the average computer user doesn't want or need.
Or... has the EU not gone after them?
you wouldn't!) - simply drag them into the trash. - Problem
solved. Oh BTW the average computer user seems to be enjoying
iTunes - what is your problem?
Microsoft has always used its dominant share of the OS market to limit competition. One of the chief ways it does this is to make it extremely difficult to access it without paying huge fees to Microsoft.
In a real free market they'd pay the price by competitors doing just the opposite, but we do NOT have a true free market.
Instead Microsoft ensures few competitors can get into the market by signing exclusive agreements with almost everyone that prevents them from working with new companies to provide any service Microsoft provides.
If they do not sign, then they cannot sell Microsoft, which means they cannot compete, and that's Microsoft's goal.
Once again the many Americans rooting for Microsoft as if it's a home sports team, and are too busy to think through the reasons behind these actions are what give proof to the lie about the USA being a free market.
Our free market is different from the European free market only in that our business interests write the rules to their favor, and the Gov't. writes the rules in favor of the people in Europe.
Socialist/government intervention raises costs and stiffles competition. The EU action is a canard. Deregulation fosters competition. (Look at the power industry in the USA)
This isn't the stone ages. If Microsoft was a real bully that upset everyone, people would go elsewhere. But they don't. The competition isn't worthy.
So take a look around. ANY time the government is intervening in ANY thing with business, it isn't capitalism. It's socialism. If you believe otherwise, keep drinking your Kool-Aide.
All you bleeding hearts trip me out, if you think you can do it better, then do it. Don't be made cause the competition is just to great for you to over come.
And you can't even say you don't need that windowsjunk. Because it's couple-selling, and thats highly illegal except for microsoft of course.
Fact is they hold themselves to not a single law, in the USA they are now convicted years ago, and in a higher court they where found guilty again. And the punishment was ... roffle ... "you may not do that again, we will place 2 or 3 employees in your company numberous employees to check if you will follow the law" ... and never heard of it again...
In another comment I saw something about they invented mediaplayer: no they copied it, like they copy, steal, ... everything. They have almost not a single idea of their own. But they have several strategies to push others out of the market who are better.
Netscape vs IE? Anyone who will go under all the trouble to try and uninstall IE with the risk to break windows just to pay for a better product, not Joe A. Enduser.
But Netscape can't tell it to you anymore...
Stacker vs Dblspace? Here you go it's for free, never mind we stole the code from the competition...
But Stacker can't tell it to you anymore...
Mediaplayer vs Xing/Winamp/Realplayer/... Same story, we give it for free and deeply hooked into the system so the competitions products won't be installed.
But Xing can't tell it to you anymore...
OS2 vs Win95 Let's make an OS together with IBM, but in last instances we announce to get out, change all Win32APIs so it's not compatible, and we boost it with a giant marketing campaign. I worked with both, OS2 didn't crash, and was speedy and since it's still used in some banking automats, it's damn safe to.
But OS2 can't tell it to you anymore...
ICQ vs MSN: Every computer with XP bothers the user until he manages to disable the messenger or until he writes up for a messenger account, never mind that there are a LOT of open ports on your PC then instead of just 1 and that you have no access to a lot of extra features that were handy if you turned on the advanced UI. BTW: multiple protocol messengers like miranda-im and trillian where broken more than once because of changing the protocol.
But ICQ can't tell it to you anymore...
I'm a softwarewriter myself, and it's more than mediaplayer alone...
1) They start parts of their own software together with the OS (why is MS Office a program of couple of 100s of MBs such a quick starter in comparison with everything else => because parts of it are allready running and eating your resources)
2) They withhold large parts of their API
Their programs hook that way streight into the OS, why we can't. This has 2 considerations:
a) We make the functionality of the API's we don't have ourselves, but it's outside the OS so it's a bit slower and some functionality is blocked (bv Raw sockets) so we have to workaround that
b) We "guess" some of these APIs and implement them, but that's against the law, and they can change it whenever they want (and it happens a lot => look to SMB/Samba, they change so much that they aren't compatible with theirselves sometimes) So this also isn't preferable.
3) They make subtile changes to standards (bv TCP/IP) so they know how it works with them now, another doesn't, because all documentation says something else. And their extentions are proprietary so people are locked in again.
So it's not "people who aren't programming for microsoft can't program", it's more "microsoft does everything so it's difficult for competition to make a major program for windows" You read well, a major program, in a niche market you don't have to fear.
So if you microsoft lovers want to believe that it's not moral, for freedom, a lot of people (also in the US by the way) their bread on the table, better software, ... IT IS MORAL and not greed, because they didn't do jack **** about it the last 2 years except a lot of wind and talk
Reason #2) Windows already had a windows based before win95 called win3.1
Reason #3) AOL Bought up ICQ (and winamp)
Reason #4) You sound like a fan boy.
I don't program for Microsoft and I don't have any trouble writing software.
And if you don't so many things about Windows, vote with your wallet and just don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives, between Linux Distro's and Apple and Unix. Hmmm large choice, how is it that they have a monopoly again?
Expecially considering all their evil bundled software.
democracy in Europe. It is because the European governments 1st work for the benefit of their citizens and then Big corporations/media, whereas in US the government 1st works for the benefit of Big (wall street backed) corporation and at the distant 2nd place for it's citizens.
To see this point, consider the fact the people in USA still don't even have Universal Health care!
No European government would last 6 months in power if it was omitting to provide its citizen
with such a basic service. You have to go to real pathetically poor countries, such as Angola, Gahana, Bangeladesh, etc. to find other examples of countries that do not provide universal health care to their citizens. To put things into perspective of how un-democratic this is: more Americans die every few days from lack of health care than died in Sep/11/2001!
Now I can give you another 1000 examples of how un-democratic the US is compared to European
countries, but the example of lack of Universal Health care is all the room I have here.
The question is then, how is it possible that the US is so un-democratic? How do the powers to be in US get away with this lack of democracy?
How come there are not demonstrations in US streets to replace their un-democratic government
with a democratic one, as there are all the time in European countries? The answer is that the US media is controlled by a handful of people, who have "brain washed" the people into gullibility and not knowing what is the truth anymore.
And the US media is not just WallStreet Journal, CNN, CBS, etc.but it is also Hollywood,
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., it is this oligopoly that wants to control all "eye balls" worldwide.
So EU indeed needs to take the actions that it has taken against Microsoft and in fact take further actions to protect it's economy/culture from being controlled by US media oligopoly.
Less EU wants to end up being as un-democratic and as fundamentally poor as US and it's citizens are.
Again EU, indeed other governments beside EU, must realize it is not just the Microsoft monopoly that
threatens their national security, but it is even more so Google & Yahoo and indeed the whole of
the US media oligopoly that wants to control the "eye ball", the "mind" of their people.
But the good news is that the threat posed by Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., oligopoly can
easily be met by EU innovation. For examples just look at Linux, MySQL, Airbus, TGV, BMW, etc.
Go here to see his old rant: http://news.com.com/5208-1014-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=18640&messageID=159743&start=-136
Don't worry, we'll be there when the **** hits the fan again, like in WWII to bail you out and rebuild your economy so you can trash it again with something like the EU.
Everyone tries to imitate the US, but no one succeeds.
1. None of the software bundled with OS X are actually tied to the operating system in the way IE or WMP are tied to Windows.
2. Why is Microsoft software so dominent on the Windows platform, when we have highly intelligent program designers in other companies? Because the Operating System is NOT as open to outside software houses. I am still surprised that the US ruling all these years ago allowed Microsoft to remain a single entity, when everything pointed to breaking the company down to at least two.
3. Every large country - The US included - took step against Microsoft anti-competitive behaviour. Some country do not have the legal (or financial?) power to go through such a lengthy case, like the US or the EU, so citizens have taken the matter into their own hands (the majority of businesses in Argentina - more than 75% according to some sources - for instance, are running Linux and Linux applications), or local organizations have gone to great lengths to move away from Microsoft-ruled world (in Korea, Denmark, India, USA, Belgium, etc.)
3. At no time was it a question of opening 'it all' (although interestingly enough, Microsoft starting doing that by themselves to a few selected countries, only after seeing a potential defection to Open Source). The requirements were very clear and hinge on the unbinding from the Operating System.
4. The Java example is a typical case of unbundling. Because Microsoft refused to run Java 'as is' on Windows, without adding their 'bit'(although it runs the same on every other platform), their license was cancelled, and the Microsoft Java virtual machine 'untied' from Windows. Does Java work on Windows today?
5. The question is not so much about free entreprise and sour states. It is about responsibility. Many times large companies have been allowed to bully competitors and clients. From THE telephone company to THE computer manufacturer, they are eventually stopped.
6. A few hundred millions is nothing for Microsoft. They pay that much without blinking to avoid litigation with other companies. I am not even sure that it will stop their tactics at this time. It is a pity though. Their latest server OS is the best they've produced, their office applications are finally maturing into something user-friendly. If Microsoft would just compete fairly on their products' own merits, they would be truly great.
1. None of the software bundled with OS X are actually tied to the operating system in the way IE or WMP are tied to Windows.
2. Why is Microsoft software so dominent on the Windows platform, when we have highly intelligent program designers in other companies? Because the Operating System is NOT as open to outside software houses. I am still surprised that the US ruling all these years ago allowed Microsoft to remain a single entity, when everything pointed to breaking the company down to at least two.
3. Every large country - The US included - took step against Microsoft anti-competitive behaviour. Some country do not have the legal (or financial?) power to go through such a lengthy case, like the US or the EU, so citizens have taken the matter into their own hands (the majority of businesses in Argentina - more than 75% according to some sources - for instance, are running Linux and Linux applications), or local organizations have gone to great lengths to move away from Microsoft-ruled world (in Korea, Denmark, India, USA, Belgium, etc.)
3. At no time was it a question of opening 'it all' (although interestingly enough, Microsoft starting doing that by themselves to a few selected countries, only after seeing a potential defection to Open Source). The requirements were very clear and hinge on the unbinding from the Operating System.
4. The Java example is a typical case of unbundling. Because Microsoft refused to run Java 'as is' on Windows, without adding their 'bit'(although it runs the same on every other platform), their license was cancelled, and the Microsoft Java virtual machine 'untied' from Windows. Does Java work on Windows today?
5. The question is not so much about free entreprise and sour states. It is about responsibility. Many times large companies have been allowed to bully competitors and clients. From THE telephone company to THE computer manufacturer, they are eventually stopped.
6. A few hundred millions is nothing for Microsoft. They pay that much without blinking to avoid litigation with other companies. I am not even sure that it will stop their tactics at this time. It is a pity though. Their latest server OS is the best they've produced, their office applications are finally maturing into something user-friendly. If Microsoft would just compete fairly on their products' own merits, they would be truly great.
Microsoft did break monopoly laws in multiple countries. Many courts found them in violation of anti-competition laws. Nearly every court that found them in violation agreed to lower sanctions and wave punitive measures if Microsft agreed to some simple resolutions. These resolutions were mainly that they cease anti-competitive behavior and provide a level of openness to make up for their previous violations.
The debate over if they broke laws or not is long over, they were found in violation. Even in the US they were found in violation but offered non punative resolutions as long as they promised to be on good behavior.
The thing is now years later we find they havent made good on their resolutions. Its like a convicted theif that was offered community service in place of a prison sentence. Now we find they skipped most of their community service.
I have no dobuts Micorsoft has done some good in the industry and they do have billiant people. They just need to stop acting like a spoiled teenager, pay their sentences, learn their lessions, get out of the legal game and get into producing good software without breaking laws.
Not that I agree with Apple being such a closed box. I think open is good, but cuthroat pepole like Bill, Steve, and like can only make a fair as opposed to killer profit with open technologies.
Communist regulations? The Cold War is over buddy, and the war with communism was with the Soviet Union. I do not recall if Russia has joined the EU, but the important thing is Democracy exists in all of EUROPEAN UNION members.
Others need to follow similar suit.
Walt
- Now,do you see why Americans are hated?
-
by ring66leader
July 12, 2006 8:50 AM PDT
- All American companies have to do if they wanted to evade these kinds of cases is to bribe US politicians to escape further culpability. Let's see them try that in Europe.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- LMAO
-
by SeizeCTRL
July 12, 2006 9:38 AM PDT
- Oh fancy this, another snobby "we are so better than you" European! You guys have just as many problems as we have, just we put ours on the front page, you guys hide them in the closet until they reach some Hitler like level.
-
-
- Practice What You Preach Sir
-
by Collants
July 12, 2006 9:52 AM PDT
- Not everyone hates Americans. It is not civilized to hate everyone of them just because you met a couple you didn't like. There are civilized ways to express your opinions. There are civilized ways to debate the issues. It is not civilized to use such words as "hate" when speaking generally about another nation. America is a nation of many peoples. Afford them the same respect you would any other if you wish to make any claims to civility.
-
-
- I agree, but NEED to seperate
-
by jontemple
July 12, 2006 11:59 AM PDT
- I am an American and I feel just like you do about the Corporate Ownership of our government,media and arts.
-
-
See all 124 Comments >>And to those advocating for MicroS**t to tell Europeans to go to hell, even I encourage this. No better way to jumpstart the Micros**t exodus than to stop its operations in Europe.
To all American jingoists, you may be able to do this kind of thing back home, but in the civilised world you're going to get slapped down.
I don't think hate is the right word... seems more like ENVY!
Are you seriously telling me that it is impossible to bribe a European? I could be you anything if Microsoft dumped $100 million in the bank accounts of those in the EU that are pushing for the Microsoft reforms, that the whole ordeal would quickly vanish. No matter how "civilized" you may think Europeans are over Americans, simple fact is you guys are still HUMAN.
American's are getting crapped on like never before.
ring66leader,
With what you wrote, it is essential that you seperate the people of the United states from the Corporations and the Government ofthe United States.
This is the same way I seperate the British from Tony Blair who has his head firmly up George Bush's butt.
Look, we know that Gates is a sociopath and is in the destroying all competition and controlling everything. Even stujpider are the people that trust anything that the "Bill Gates Foundation" has done and will do. That one is scary. How Gates has treated his employees and screwed them, then offshored his talent so that Microsoft pays absolutely ZERO in U.S. taxes. I can go on and on.
Yes, the U.S. congress is are prostitutes who are screwing the U.S. people and the world. Look my Democratic Senator votes yes on anything to do with the war, from stopping a congressional investigation of Halliburton, who got bidless contracts and the Vice President is still receiving checks from, to the unlimted spending on the war, torture, use of mecernaries, etc.
BUT, I know that, in Colorado, there are major government contractors. like Lockheed Martin, Fort Carson army base, The Air Force Academy, Fort Pendelton Air Force Base as well as Norad, dug into the mountains. I know enough military here and people from Norad to know the scam and tragedy of Iraq and 9/11.
BUT, it is the government which sends the troops, it is the government that has given out bidless contracts, it is the Microsoft Corporation that has gone through endless lawsuits from the states and the feds, but they buy themselves out with a few million. I know that they have made theri competition become like subsidiaries (Sun, Microsystems, Even Apple). But it is NOT the people of the U.S. We are getting screwed and with the Coroporate control of the oligopoly of the press/media, every minute of every news broadcast and newspaper article from the conventional media is a lie. I actually read the British papers on the web.
This is the first time in American history, that the Corporate control of the Administrative branch and the Legislative Branch is to a point that, they can ignore the usual influence that contacts with Congress and the President had in the past.
I will end on, the unbelievable statement made by the Bushian, new head of Contress (the old one is facing trials), when he backed up Bush and will assign contracts and give to charities ONLY that support Bush and the Replicans !!
HEck, Bush did lose both of his elections, it was fixed with these machines made by a major Bush fundraiser, where there is NO way to backup or audit the votes, or even just dump the transactions to paper. Does this kind ofthing get reported to the American People, NO.
Please seperate the Government, U.S. International Oligopolies/Monopolies and the Government from tjhe people of the nation. I ma proud to say that I am an American, but I am ashamed and gift as much as I can, against the forces in the Government and Corporations that have destroyed the UJ.S. economy, exploit its people here and all over the world, understand that Iraq is just a land grap for oil and is a occupation, not a "war", etc.
jon