Microsoft Faces $618m Fine In Eu Case

its not the movie encoding type thats the monopoly, its the fact that microsoft ship media player integrated into windows so people never try alternative media players and all the software companies trying to sell better media players are basically screwed (Just like the internet browser wars some years back). Also microsoft made it purposefully hard for other companies to produce alternatives to microsoft programs, ie because someone has bought windows they are forced to use a whole range of other microsoft products because microsoft won't allow competition.


Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don't think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilw@30 March 2004 - 08:15
Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don't think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think!)

---

API's

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+30 March 2004 - 12:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 30 March 2004 - 12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@30 March 2004 - 08:15
Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don&#39;t think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think&#33;)

---

API&#39;s [/b][/quote]
It is very often more than just API&#39;s, Microsoft also build shortcuts and backdoors into their software which allows them to develop more efficient solutions. They still publish the "proper" way of doing things, but that often involves going through masses of inefficient code to do the same job.

An example from way back - there is no way to directly access the TCP/IP stack from a dos session under Win9x. But the ping command only runs in a dos session, so how does it work? Answer - it uses an undocumented back door directly into the TCP/IP stack. Anyone trying to develop a similar network stack (or utilities for Microsoft&#39;s version) would find it impossible.

Anyway, hasn&#39;t someone "published" their source code for them? :lol:

It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol: :lol: :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol: :lol: :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.

---

Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx+11 May 2004 - 02:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 11 May 2004 - 02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.

---

Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;) [/b][/quote]
Oh please.

Where was this before America brought their suit?

Why is the EU taking into account worldwide sales? (including America for example)

Why was the "media player" fiasco cited?

Anti-trust against what European companies?

I can possibly see this so called stiff penalty in America...if any companies were harmed the most they were American.

The EU comes out of left field with this bullshit.

Maybe Australia should levy the same penalty, since it does take into account worldwide sales....

Then China....

Then South Africa....

&#036;618m a pop.

bullshit&#33; <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+11 May 2004 - 06:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 11 May 2004 - 06:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 02:17
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

---

Quote:

---

@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.

---

Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;)

---

Oh please.

Where was this before America brought their suit?

Why is the EU taking into account worldwide sales? (including America for example)

Why was the "media player" fiasco cited?

Anti-trust against what European companies?

I can possibly see this so called stiff penalty in America...if any companies were harmed the most they were American.

The EU comes out of left field with this bullshit.

Maybe Australia should levy the same penalty, since it does take into account worldwide sales....

Then China....

Then South Africa....

&#036;618m a pop.

bullshit&#33; <_< [/b][/quote]
Firstly, this has been going on for quite some time, it hasn&#39;t started just because the USDoJ brought a suit against Microsoft (and in the end let them off the hook). It may have started with IE, but as Microsoft bundles more and more software with its OS it digs itself deeper and deeper into the mire.

Media Player is just one of the latest of a long line of violations, they never seem to learn. I assume the size of the fine is intended to teach them that lesson.

Secondly, it isn&#39;t about worldwide sales, someone else brought that factor into the discussion to shown how small the fine was in relationship.

You obviously don&#39;t understand the true extent of the reasons behind anti-trust laws. It is not about protecting other companies, even though they are often the ones who produce the complaints which trigger these actions. It is about protecting consumers from monopolistic actions, so even if the other companies which benefit from the action may be American that is a by-product of the action.

Maybe Australia and South Africa and China should get in on the action, Microsoft might finally figure out that monopoly abuse will not be tolerated.

lynx, what are you talking about?

The EU fine was based on Microsoft&#39;s worldwide sales.

Maybe you need to researxh a little further. It&#39;s one of the reasons that MS is raising such a hoopla.

That&#39;s one reason I say the EU is looking for a payday.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@23 March 2004 - 17:02
The EU most likely took into account Microsoft&#39;s worldwide sales.

---

BS

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 May 2004 - 08:03
it&#39;s hardly a payday, the fine in real terms is buttons.

the fact that it is an American company is of no significance.

a business was carrying out monopolistic practices in the EU. the EU found them guilty of this and imposed what it believed to be an appropriate fine.

the business has the right to appeal, one assumes both the ruling and the level of the fine.

it really is quite simple, i am sure MS will appeal this as vigorously as they can. quite rightly so, it behoves them to look after the interests of it&#39;s shareholders. in the same way that the EU should look after it&#39;s citizens.

the legal system in action, it&#39;s wonderful to watch.

---

Actually, I agree, in large part.

The U.S. legal system has shown it can be gotten around somewhat with regard to monopolistic business practices.

I don&#39;t denigrate Microsoft/Gates to the extent others do, because in the main, their products are amazing, even though they can be nit-picked to death; Bill Gates&#39;s story is incredible, and worthy of enshrinement.

That said, and while I watch with trepidation the actions of other courts (I fully admit my parochial attitude, here), I have long felt that U.S. courts needed to end their practice of finding "exceptions to the rule" as re: monopolistic business practices; Major League Baseball in particular, and professional sports in general, have conducted their "business" with nodding acquiescence and a quick wink from the courts.

Baseball is certainly the most egregious offender, but every time I see a professional team in any sport hold an entire city hostage over a new stadium/venue, I want to puke, and I think it&#39;s time to end this infernal legal covenant.

Bit of a rant, there, but...... :)