“I don’t know what anti-competitive means”
A European Union court has backed a European Commission ruling that Microsoft, the world’s largest software maker, illegally abused its market power to crush competitors.
The second-highest EU court dismissed the company’s appeal on all substantive points of the 2004 antitrust ruling and upheld a record 497 million euro ($689.9 million) fine.
The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. The verdict may be appealed only on points of law and not of fact and may force Microsoft to change its business practices.
Since the original decision, the Commission has fined Microsoft a further 280.5 million euros, saying it had failed to comply with the interoperability sanction. The EU regulator is considering a further fine for non-compliance.
Should be interesting to see what happens next – since Microsoft has exhausted any appeals based on content issues.
pedro, you are soooo right!
“Catch us” at what? Adding value and user demanded features to the OS? Making one of the best media players / content organizer databases now available on any OS?
Maybe if Real and the other whiners made a product people actually wanted, they could compete. iTunes isn’t having any trouble on Windows – because it offers something of value to the customer.
I sort of agree with publishing the code for network and application interoperability.
I don’t agree with removing / restricting features from Windows to float companies who can’t innovate to compete.
“A jubilant EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the ruling should lead to a “significant drop” in Microsoft’s 95 percent market share.”
1. How do they measure market share? Ok, we all know Microsoft has a monopoly. But is it 90%, 95%, 99%? The last thing I read was Apple had 6% market share, and it was rising. And I thought Linux had 1 or 2%. So is Microsoft at 92% already?
2. What if Microsoft doesn’t lose market share? What if they stop all their anti-competitive behavior, charge a fair price, etc. And people keep buying their software? If their market share doesn’t drop to
Can someone please tell me how this statement does not apply to Apple iPods as well. Just change the relevant words ie: Microsoft to Apple, operating system to hardware.
“The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice.”
Hmmm. In the U.S. there’s the same corporation with the same monopolistic, anti-competitive practices but there are no such lawsuits. That’s odd.
I do seem to vaguely recall, at one time M$ was found guilty of the same thing in the States but nothing ever happened as a result. I wonder how that happened, just after Bush got elected?
The message here is that to maintain their competitive edge, M$ needs to get more involved in financing European politicians.
The message here is don’t be too successful. I would think there are many software companies hoping to be bought by Microsoft and smile all the way to the bank!
Cheers
“…tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice”
Which is bullshit – how many people DO NOT use iExplorer, Windows Media Player, Windows CD/DVD burning, defrag, Defender and on and on. The choices are there for people to make.
Court rulings like this ultimately hurt the consumer! By Windows having bundled apps this raises the bar for other developers to code better apps.
Cheers
5 – the difference between iPods and Windows is one answered by reading the article:
“The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice.”
Apple doesn’t tie new applications to it’s iPods in “a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice.” – There are no applications for it! it’s a closed platform! (Hacks don’t count).
Windows however isn’t (it’s closed source, but that’s different).
What you are complaing about is market dominance. Now they do tie iTunes tracks to the iPods by Fairplay, but that is legal (annoying, but legal). Also it is required by the RIAA else there wouldn’t be an iTMS.
So Apple has very little culpability over that issue really. It works out really well for them, and I’m sure they love it, but you have to remember that iTMS doesn’t make that much money for them – the money is all in the (closed) hardware.
If they were making it so that to play mp4’s or aac tracks you had to have the new version of the iPod, that would be something different. But it’s not, and the situation isn’t even close to the MS one.
[disclaimer: I, like many other people, own some apple hardware, but also… like many of those people, am not a mac fanatic.]
#5 Can someone please tell me how this statement does not apply to Apple iPods as well.
In exactly the same way it doesn’t apply to Microsoft’s Zune.
Just as any DRM’d music I buy from Apple will only play-back on a device Apple authorizes, so any DRM’d music I buy from Microsoft will only play-back on a device that Microsoft authorizes.
Having a product be popular enough to spawn a monopoly-position in a market is not a crime.
Keeping your system proprietary is not a crime.
Using income from your monopoly to bankroll the release of free versions of software – which someone else is trying to sell for a profit – is a crime.
As the Fake Steve Jobs has said regarding people who whine about DRM: http://tinyurl.com/28vs6t
“They think this is just the biggest evil in the world. I hate to say this but if you are one of these people, your outrage only demonstrates what a narrow, selfish little person you are and what a tiny, sheltered life you lead.”
#4,
As a longtime Linux junkie, let me give you an honest answer…
point 1: In Europe Apple has almost no market share, and Linux has somewhere around 4 or 5 percent of the desktop/laptop market. So if they stop there, they are pretty close to correct. But they chose the consumer end to make Microsoft seem more oppressive. On the server side Linux has about 60% of the world market and it’s gaining most rapidly in Europe (and falling slightly in U.S. but what can you do.) Since the case was equally about server issues I think it would have been more honest to include them in the market share…….
point 2: Linux has steadily grown among advanced users and server farms since the early days of its existence. While ordinary users will continue to use the OS they are familiar with. I don’t think market share will move more than a few points in any direction.
#9 By Windows having bundled apps this raises the bar for other developers to code better apps.
Except that “raising the bar” in this case is seen – in legal terms – as “a barrier to entry” into the market.
The barrier being not just that Microsoft can bankroll its add-ons via income from Windows – while competitors have to find a way to profit from their efforts to “code better apps” – but specifically the incestuous relationship the add-ons have with Windows.
Microsoft was not found guilty of “tying new applications to its Windows operating system”…
Microsoft was found guilty of doing that : “in a way that squeezed out rivals”…
#14 I beg to differ. You cannot use an oy!Phone if you don’t use oy!Tunes.
Then you either didn’t read #10, or don’t understand what you read.
iPhones, iPods & iTunes being a “closed system” does not force established non-Apple products out of that system because nothing non-Apple was ever allowed into those systems.
And despite being closed, proprietary systems, they have somehow become widely popular.
Microsoft has been found guilty of having a dominant system that lets others in, and then squashes some of them… if Redmond decides to incorporate that functionality into Windows.
Apple faces a similar problem with Safari.. i.e. how do makers of Opera and OmniWeb sell their product when Apple gives Safari away for free? Apparently the fact that Safari is not incestuously-bound to the Mac OS keeps Apple from having legal hassles. Or, is it just that Apples Mac OS doesn’t have monopoly dominance in the market?
#14 And the warning of the UE on mac was to open up their DRM to let other people into their music distribution because…
So Apple should be enthusiastic about being told to let others in, so that they can run the risk of squashing those they are forced to accommodate?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but unless you rely on a grey market hack you can’t even activate the ip-hone without iTunes, the most onerous of all malware (if it was any company besides apple doing the things iTunes did everyone would call it malware) applications.
Microsoft was found guilty of doing that : “in a way that squeezed out rivals”…
Only because the rivals suck. People didn’t like Real when it was *the* way to stream audio over the net. Its spyware infested crappy software.
Heres another example. I use Firefox despite the fact that MS gives me IE already. Why? I like FF better. The superior product should determine the victor, not over reaching courts on a MS smacking ego trip.
As I said before, some of the things the EU complains about is valid – true interoperability helps every one. Even MS, even if they cant see it. But this Media Player thing is stupid.
MS does enough shady crap without making up lame ways of trying one hand behind their back.
What a crock of shit!
I wonder of these EU fu**ers will go after Apple next because they bundle quicktime with every mac sold. In fact, they also bundle iMovie and all the other stuff thats similar tyo what MS was accused of bundling so why the hell shouldn’t get be investigated too?
17…Real innovated. It sucked, maybe still does, but the worthy potential competitors bailed out early because MS created WMP, thereby guaranteeing that all but the most dedicated techies would stay with WMP. That’s a barrier to entry based on a monopoly.
As for the IE thing, how many users–those who really need a browser like FF– use IE because that’s what came with the system and that’s what runs by default, and they don’t even know they have options?
If we had to go get WMP or IE, the same as we do for FF or Real, then fairness is possible, somewhat. There’s nothing wrong with being a monopoly, but once MS earned that status they gave up a lot of competitive rights, at least based on the way laws used to be interpreted here in the US.
……I had no idea there were so many MS apologists here. Dayum.
This is just like the argument over net neutrality. We should turn the OS into a public utility, that is forced to provide equal access to all software.
19 – WMP sucked badly the 1st 9 versions or so. They’ve just now gotten it right with 11. In fact I used to use Winamp – lost of folks did – because it was the better player.
You’re telling me no one could build a better mousetrap in all that time and beat MS to the punch? The fact of the matter is Real and the other “competitors” dropped the ball and now they want to call foul on MS.
Okay, so I am a little ignorant of this ruling. What, exactly, does this bode for the future? It is more than a simple monetary slap on the wrist. They are requiring M$ to give up (some?) of their proprietary code. How will that affect the future of the Windows? Which code must be made public?
And is this the real reason for the Vista push? M$ may have to publicize some of their old XP code but will that code be obsolete when M$ stops making XP?
Can somebody please give this poor Mac, Linux, and reluctant XP user a clue?
And why are they bundling Internet Explorer, and even Windows Explorer? This is a real barrier to entry to all those utility makers who might want to make their own file browser.
If MS decided to offer Office for free, you would post about it and celebrate. But if they bundled it with the OS, you would say bad MS.
The problem with this ruling, is that if Microsoft complies fully, opens up all its software, and file formats, stops being “anti-competitive” (whatever that means), and does everything the EU requires of it, but they DON’T lose market share, then the EU will charge them and fine them again.
MS’s back doors and forced updates can change Vista, and all future MS operating systems, so the third party programs have trouble running, if not shut them down altogether.
Any bets MS would /not/ do exactly that, given the chance? Any bets this is not part of the “cloud computing” business plan?
Is is possible for Microsoft to simply not bundle these apps in EU Windows and leave it up to the consumer to download them for free? Maybe too simple?
Cheers
#29: what, and give users a choice? That would mean that users would actually have the possibility of using something other than a Microsoft product. What are you thinking?
I see two possibilities for M$:
1. Pay the fine and move forward. Suck it up, Mr. Gates. It’s the cost of doing business within the EU.
2. Leave the EU market totally and let them fall apart trying to use *nix and Apple OSes. Then when the rest of the world is still using Windows and the EU has fallen behind so badly behind the rest of the world, M$ can say, “Suck it, Europe! You wanted to punish us, well, it backfired!”
You got it, pedro. They don’t… or rather the stockholders don’t… have a choice if they want to keep the profits rolling in and dividends flowing.
What most of you tech geeks always forget is that about 89% of non-goverment. business computor users are just simple folks….they want cheap, reliable(still waiting for that one) and EASY. MS has always known this and by bundling has provided the cheap and easy parts. I could walk 40 miles and not meet more than 10 people who build their own systems and I live in silicon valley. Has MS been anti-competitive in the past, you bet your ass, but most *normal* putor users could care less, because unlike most monopolies of the past, they didn’t raise their prices, they lowered most of them.
What you have to understand is that the EU is a left wing nanny state type organisation. Innovation means nothing, everything HAS to be even steven…..it’s only *fair*. It’s nothing more than a more sophisticated form of communism….everyone is equal…..unfortunately that usually means poor/average.
I’ve always found it interesting that the EU goverment is a far left goverment, but most of the member states are conservative or center-right…..they don’t care what the make believe EU does, but at home they want a capitalistic society.
MS was pre-ordained to lose this case, simply because it gives the bearuacrats of the EU loads of hard cash to spend on their new office furniture.
*sigh* The amount of misunderstandings in these posts is depressing.
MS is not punished for being successful, nor are they punished for being a monopoly — they’re being punished for behaving like a monopoly. There is a very important difference between the two.
They EU doesn’t care one bit if MS has 5%, 50% or 100% of the OS market — they care about MS using their control over that marketshare to push other, non-OS-related, products to the sidelines by not providing an equal playing field for all software developers. By not fully disclosing the API, they forced other browser- and media player manufacturers to do things in rather roundabout ways, when IE and WMP could hook directly into unknown parts of the OS and get better performance.
And yes, the same thing does apply to Apple, as the recent spouts in Norway and France shows. And yes, the EU is getting involved.
This is not so much to the iPod itself as the connection between the iPod and iTunes. Here, it is the exact same situation: through their control over iTunes, Apple can keep other PMPs from interacting as well with the store as the iPods do, just like IE and WMP had an advantage on the Windows platform. Again, whether or not Apple actually has a monopoly with iTunes is irrelevant — it’s the fact that they act like a monopoly that is putting them on a collision course with the EU courts.
34 *sigh* The amount of misunderstandings in these posts is depressing.
“misunderstandings”? – You are a polite person.
@35: Good point — bad exampel on my part… although, at the time of the original complaint (back in ’98), IE was actually faster than the competition, and could probably have kept that advantage to this day, had MS not chosen to deprioritize (some would say kill dead) the further development of the browser.
Another, perhaps better example would be that only MS-products, which had the right hooks, were (and still are) capable of being used for various instant-prevew and API drop-in functions in the OS. No-one else knew how to do it, and MS wasn’t about to tell anyone…