EU give M$ Hard Whack!

[Rubber Duck]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

[blastfromthepast]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

Way to go.

[burnsinternet]

As long as they can finish Vista, I don't care.

[rhys]

In the interest of fairness, I find that Microsoft is the victim here.

Microsoft bent over backwards to meet the requirements of the EU ruling. The EU refused to clarify what it meant by "appropriate technical documentation" - several hundred microsoft employees were deployed to put together an enormous technical specifications document to provide transparency to potential competitors. The EU took over 9 months to even make a comment that Microsoft's submission was inadequate. Again they refused to provide more concrete guidance as to what would be considered "adequate". Hopefully, a resolution will be found to this dilemma soon because it is in no ones interest.

The EU also ordered that a version of XP be made for the market which did not bundle in Media Player. Microsoft pulled significant resources away from other projects to do this and brought the new SKU quickly to market. It has barely sold a single copy. Is this what the EU considers a "win" for its consumers? It certainly isn't a win for EU citizens who are Microsoft shareholders.

[domainguru]

In the interest of fairness, I find that Microsoft is the victim here.

Microsoft bent over backwards to meet the requirements of the EU ruling. The EU refused to clarify what it meant by "appropriate technical documentation" - several hundred microsoft employees were deployed to put together an enormous technical specifications document to provide transparency to potential competitors. The EU took over 9 months to even make a comment that Microsoft's submission was inadequate. Again they refused to provide more concrete guidance as to what would be considered "adequate". Hopefully, a resolution will be found to this dilemma soon because it is in no ones interest.

The EU also ordered that a version of XP be made for the market which did not bundle in Media Player. Microsoft pulled significant resources away from other projects to do this and brought the new SKU quickly to market. It has barely sold a single copy. Is this what the EU considers a "win" for its consumers? It certainly isn't a win for EU citizens who are Microsoft shareholders.

In the interest of "fairness", isn't it true that Ryhs works for Microsoft? :)

I'm not going to get into a big debate, but as someone who has followed the practices of Microsoft since it was peddling Windows 3.0, to accuse that organziation of being a "victim" of anything is pretty laughable.

Are you seriously telling me that consumers stopped buying Windows XP because it didn't have WMP bundled? Give me a break - you can download it for nothing from the Microsoft website if you really want it that bad.

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, the only software I am interest in is IE 7.0. Issue of this will be more about relief than gratitude. They have cornered the market and then exhibited wanton neglect. This behaviour seems to form part of a pattern. Anyone that stands up against monopolization of the software market has my support.


In the interest of "fairness", isn't it true that Ryhs works for Microsoft? :)

I'm not going to get into a big debate, but as someone who has followed the practices of Microsoft since it was peddling Windows 3.0, to accuse that organziation of being a "victim" of anything is pretty laughable.

Are you seriously telling me that consumers stopped buying Windows XP because it didn't have WMP bundled? Give me a break - you can download it for nothing from the Microsoft website if you really want it that bad.

[Drewbert]

My heart pumps piss for Microsoft.

>several hundred microsoft employees were deployed to put together an enormous
>technical specifications document to provide transparency to potential competitors

Are you saying that prior to this there was no technical documentation for it?

No wonder it's full of [mod] security holes!

[rhys]

In the interest of "fairness", isn't it true that Ryhs works for Microsoft? :)

I'm not going to get into a big debate, but as someone who has followed the practices of Microsoft since it was peddling Windows 3.0, to accuse that organziation of being a "victim" of anything is pretty laughable.

Are you seriously telling me that consumers stopped buying Windows XP because it didn't have WMP bundled? Give me a break - you can download it for nothing from the Microsoft website if you really want it that bad.

I am indeed and I have never denied who my employer is. But I am no apologist for my employer - that is a subject about which it is far too risky to discuss publicly. Anyway my employment places me in an excellent position to help people understand the other side of the story. Reading this thread, I felt it would be important to add a little balance to the discussion so that it doesn't read like a bunch of anti-microsoft folks on a witch hunt. I believe in the intelligence of the senior members of this forum more than that. :)

It's easy to bash a company but we all know that governments too can go crazy with all the power they are entrusted with which I believe to be the case here. We should be as critical of governments as we are of successful companies we fear or loathe.

Let's try stay civil and respectful as usual shall we? If you bothered to read my point above, I never said that consumers stopped buying Windows XP. I just said that MSFT spent good money to provide the market with one version of Windows XP without WMP by EU decree and it hasn't sold squat. No one wants it. The underlying question is did this ruling actually make an impact and serve the interests of EU citizens. I have my doubts based on sales of the end product.

As for the second point, the Commission required that MSFT license some of their Windows server communications protocols and provide what it called “complete and accurate technical specifications” to assist licensees in implementing these protocols. The Commission and Microsoft are currently disagreeing on the adequacy of these technical specifications. As I stated before, the Commisson has not provided clear guidelines to what would be considered adequate. They didn't bother to reply to MSFT's submission for 9 months and then they decide to call up one day and say, "submission is inadequate" please pay us millions of dollars a day until you get it right. They do this without feedback as to what constitutes "adequate". That strikes me as an abuse of power (none of my statements reflect the views of my employer).

[Rubber Duck]

They didn't bother to reply to MSFT's submission for 9 months and then they decide to call up one day and say, "submission is inadequate" please pay us millions of dollars a day until you get it right.

I have to say I have not studied the case in detail but, if Microsoft is being fined, it is because it is contravention of court order, not simply because the EU doesn't like them.

[rhys]

I have to say I have not studied the case in detail but, if Microsoft is being fined, it is because it is contravention of court order, not simply because the EU doesn't like them.

The court order had 2 components which I exlained above. MSFT clearly attempted to comply with both but is being fined for not turning in "adequate" documetation. The court order did not define and despite numerous requests has since failed to define the basis upon which "adequacy" of technical specifications ordered by the commission would be judged. It strikes me that this is a responsibility of the court or those delegated by the court to provide.

[Rubber Duck]

The court order had 2 components which I exlained above. MSFT clearly attempted to comply with both but is being fined for not turning in "adequate" documetation. The court order did not define and despite numerous requests has since failed to define the basis upon which "adequacy" of technical specifications ordered by the commission would be judged. It strikes me that this is a responsibility of the court or those delegated by the court to provide.

The release of the code was intended to enable other Software Companies to incorportate products into the OS. The amount of information provided was either adequate for this purpose or it was not. Clearly, it has been judged it was not. Microsoft, does itself no favours with its behaviour. The truth is most Europeans would choose to believe anybody other than Microsoft on this issue. The reasons for this are historical and of Microsoft own making.

[Neptune]

I dont think either side is innocent here. The EU hasnt exactly been a saint in such dealings either.

[touchring]

Why evil or saint debate?

Microsoft is a profit driven company. EU is a sovereign entity, it can do whatever it likes.

[rhys]

The release of the code was intended to enable other Software Companies to incorportate products into the OS. The amount of information provided was either adequate for this purpose or it was not. Clearly, it has been judged it was not. Microsoft, does itself no favours with its behaviour. The truth is most Europeans would choose to believe anybody other than Microsoft on this issue. The reasons for this are historical and of Microsoft own making.

The Commission judged the document presented as inadequate without providing any stated criteria. The court's inability to provide guidance as to what it expects is clearly the issue here. MSFT has demonstrated best effort to meet the requirements placed upon it by the commission. So it is confusing what you mean about "it's behaviour".

I'm sure that people have historical reasons or existing ones to dislike MSFT and that's fine. But you cannot justify the inadequacy of a legal system based on people's historical dislike for the defendants.

[Rubber Duck]

The Commission judged the document presented as inadequate without providing any stated criteria. The court's inability to provide guidance as to what it expects is clearly the issue here. MSFT has demonstrated best effort to meet the requirements placed upon it by the commission. So it is confusing what you mean about "it's behaviour".

I'm sure that people have historical reasons or existing ones to dislike MSFT and that's fine. But you cannot justify the inadequacy of a legal system based on people's historical dislike for the defendants.

I am afraid, however, much Microsoft or indeed you harp on about this, it will just be seen as another smoke screen. Nobody, is going to go any great length to delve the detail of your case. We simply accept the courts ruling. Like or lump it, that is how it is.

[rhys]

I am afraid, however, much Microsoft or indeed you harp on about this, it will just be seen as another smoke screen. Nobody, is going to go any great length to delve the detail of your case. We simply accept the courts ruling. Like or lump it, that is how it is.

That would be me that is harping on, I do not represent the views of Microsoft corporation.