MS loses EU anti-trust appeal

[Bounty]

The European Court of First Instance has dismissed Microsoft's appeal in its long-running competition dispute with the European Commission.

The court upheld the ruling that Microsoft had abused its dominant market position.

A probe concluded in 2004 that Microsoft was guilty of freezing out rivals in server software and products such as media players.

It was ordered to change its business and fined 497m euros (£343m; $690m).

Microsoft has now been ordered to pay 80% of the Commission's legal costs, while the Commission has to carry a specific part of Microsoft's costs.

The court threw out just one small part of the European Commission's ruling, which had established an independent monitoring trustee to supervise Microsoft's behaviour.

The 2004 ruling ordered Microsoft to ensure its products could operate with other computer systems by sharing information with rival software companies.

It was also ordered to make a version of its Windows operating system available without software such as Media Player.

Last year, Microsoft was told to pay daily fines adding up to 280.5 million euros over a six-month period, after it failed to adhere to the 2004 decision.

[Covenant]

Interesting. I wonder what the ramifications will be.

Honestly though, this ruling seems a bit bizzare. Sharing interoperability secrets is fine, but really, why bother with this "Oh you bundled shit, now nobody wants realplayer" stuff? I've never understood that. Sure, they bundled it. Sure, most people said realplayer was mostly superior (me not being one of those people). But... so? Nothing's stopping you from using realplayer. Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle it's own media software? That's kinda something I expect from my OS'es. I think it'd be kinda funny to see the apple commercials if they got hit by the same legislation. There'd sure be a lot less they could offer if they weren't allowed to bundle all those things along with it.

Plus, they already have sold versions of windows without the media player, but the sales have been absolutely awful, from what the earlier link said. Seems to me that offering me an inferior product for the sake of allowing someone else to try to sell me something is a bit of a weak argument. It reminds me of someone selling me a car, but not selling me the wheels, since that would unduly favor one wheelmaking company over another.

[Resinence]

why bother with this "Oh you bundled shit, now nobody wants realplayer" stuff? I've never understood that. Sure, they bundled it. Sure, most people said realplayer was mostly superior (me not being one of those people). But... so? Nothing's stopping you from using realplayer. Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle it's own media software?

The same reason people went after them in the US for bundling IE, the "unwashed masses" just use what comes with their computer: all microsoft software, it is anti-competitive.

[Starglider]

Sure, most people said realplayer was mostly superior (me not being one of those people). But... so? Nothing's stopping you from using realplayer. Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle it's own media software? That's kinda something I expect from my OS'es. I think it'd be kinda funny to see the apple commercials if they got hit by the same legislation. There'd sure be a lot less they could offer if they weren't allowed to bundle all those things along with it.

This is an attempt to protect a company's (e.g. Real's) business model from human laziness. Much as I loathe and despise Microsoft, this is not a viable or even desirable tactic. Really the only solution is breaking up Microsoft so that there's less motivation to play 'make sure no one else's software can work' and 'make secret APIs that only our apps can use' and less ability to use vertical integration to force everyone to buy their (shitty) product.

[Edi]

Covenant, you probably were not old enough to pay attention to what happened with the browser wars in the 90s, or if you were, you didn't pay attention. MS has a history of using precisely that kind of shit to drive competitors out of business and they have been convicted of it, so anytime they make similar moves, they are going to be assumed to be guilty of attempting the same thing.

The interoperability obfuscation and hindrance and vendor lock-in are the worst consequences of that, since once they get critical mass, it is an inevitable result. Better to nip it in the bud.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If it'd been China, someone would've got a bullet enema for that RealPlayer shit. Deservedly so.

WMP isn't much better.

[Covenant]

I was old enough, but I just wasn't paying attention, same as I'm probably not paying attention now--it's hard, I don't get it, and all attempts to explain it to me have failed for some reason. I've never really understood the whole nature of encouraging competition.

I use Opera, for example, because it just works for me. I didn't really care what I had bundled, I tried it and it didn't do what I wanted, so I got a new browser. I use WMP as well as Media Player Classic and absolutely detest Realplayer. But, how far does this go? Are they going to force OS'es to not bundle word document software like Word? That to me sounds like a lousy personal experience to go through, but if it's better for business at large I can see where the EU is coming from. I'm not good with business things, so I can really only see it from a user's perspective.

And if shitty WMP is really crushing everyone else out of the market, is that really illegal? I mean, if everyone else's browser or player or whatever sucks so bad that it can't stand on it's own two feet... then what's the deal? If we stop MS from bundling it, what's stopping Microsoft from making it extremely accessible from their website the first time you authorize your copy? Or do people like Netscape make money other ways, like from ads and such, not from purchases of a program?

If someone could give me an example using other things so I could visualize it, that'd be helpful. I do trust the EU has made a good decision, but I just don't know how it makes sense.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Competition will generally lead to much better, more streamlined products for the consumer.

It's rather evident with Microsoft's software, that it's only used because it's free and already there. They're continually getting more bloated and less functional for the end user.

Heck, the OS itself is constantly getting more overblown for less real advance in capability.


I doubt it'll actually amount to anything though. The earlier anti-trust finding did little to stem Microsoft's advances towards a monopoly.

[Edi]

Most computer users are completely fucking ncompetent morons who have no business owning and using computers in the first place. I get firsthand experience of this every single day at work. So, being completely clueless and useless, they do NOT question anything. They will use the stuff that comes with the operating system by default, no matter how shitty it is. Even the halfway competent ones don't necessarily have any clue about alternatives, even though they would have no problem installing and configuring alternative software.

Microsoft knows this, which is why they try to bundle their applications with the operating system. At the same time, they obscure the APIs so that nobody can make their applications work as easily on Windows and once they get critical mass on something, they try to strongarm computer manufacturers to sign agreements that prevent them from even offering to install alternative software on computers that ship with Windows. OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) who don't comply do not get access to Windows versions as early as competitors who do comply, which means they fall behind on customization and making their own apps work on Windows, which delays their ability to offer the stuff to market, which means they fall behind in sales, which means they take a loss. Even if strongarming and direct withholding of APIs is not an option, they will only provide documentation that is so vague and complicated as to be completely useless and it sure as fuck isn't what they are using themselves to build their software.

And when somebody points this shit out and takes MS to court over it, they do a big fucking song and dance about how everyone is picking on them because they are successful and how it's un-American and counter to the principles of (robber baron) capitalism (instead of a reasonably regulated, competitive market) and then the hordes of clueless fucking morons and those like yourself who just don't give a shit go 'baa' like the herd of sheep they are and jump to Microsoft's defense. Meanwhile, the court battle drags on for years and years with Microsoft delaying, appealing, making completely meritless, useless motions that take up more time and by the time anything gets resolved, it's ten years later and there isn't any competition left because they can't survive that kind of attrition.

That's how they won the browser wars and it's what they seek to do with all other markets, but they can't pull that shit so directly anymore due to it having been established in court that that's how blatant they actually were back then. It is assumed they will try the same shit by more subtle means and from all I've seen, that assumption is a valid one.

That's why every time Microsoft shows any signs of pulling shit like that, even if it's in the preliminary stages, it needs to be hit with a big fucking hammer and hit again every time it complains instead of complying. Same needs to be done to every other company that has a similar leverage and shows similar signs, but Microsoft is in a fairly unique category.

Is that clear enough?

[Netko]

Interesting. I wonder what the ramifications will be.

Honestly though, this ruling seems a bit bizzare. Sharing interoperability secrets is fine, but really, why bother with this "Oh you bundled shit, now nobody wants realplayer" stuff? I've never understood that. Sure, they bundled it. Sure, most people said realplayer was mostly superior (me not being one of those people). But... so? Nothing's stopping you from using realplayer. Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle it's own media software? That's kinda something I expect from my OS'es. I think it'd be kinda funny to see the apple commercials if they got hit by the same legislation. There'd sure be a lot less they could offer if they weren't allowed to bundle all those things along with it.

Plus, they already have sold versions of windows without the media player, but the sales have been absolutely awful, from what the earlier link said. Seems to me that offering me an inferior product for the sake of allowing someone else to try to sell me something is a bit of a weak argument. It reminds me of someone selling me a car, but not selling me the wheels, since that would unduly favor one wheelmaking company over another.

The issue wasn't that people would have to download realplayer - that was a minor point. The main one was that OEM's could not outright replace WMP with whatever media player they wanted, thus (do to stupid users and websites that use WMP because everyone has it) making WMP the dominant player not on its merits but because of the bundling. Sure, in the end nobody really wanted the N versions, but in principle the EC was right to do this in order to protect market competition in that sector.

[Covenant]

So it's really more about making sure that the platform itself is able to operate with other company's sofware, and that the realplayer and netscape situations were just symptoms of the problem? I can see that. I think the media is putting too much of an emphasis on the "poor ol' realplayer" bit of the story, and not enough about the strongarm OEM/API stuff, which I hadn't heard of until now.

[Darth Wong]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

Yeah, but it's different for a monopoly. If there was only one car company with any significant market share and they bundled a GPS with their car, every other GPS company would go bankrupt, even if the bundled one was simultaneously the most expensive and worst GPS unit ever made.

[Molyneux]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

[Xon]

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

All IE is some minor extentions to the shell which have been well and truely baked in and a HTML rendering engine (mshtml.dll). Similar thing with WMP.

[Edi]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

That used to be possible with Windows 98 and I ran it for a long time without IE. In Windows 2000 and later versions, it was no longer possible because MS had deliberately (and unnecessarily) made it too integral a part of the operating system to remove, which is one of the direct results of the browser wars.

[Darth Wong]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

Of course you can't remove it. It's integrated. So what does that have to do with my argument? There's a real question here of what you can consider part of an "operating system" in the modern age, and you can't just brush it off by assuming that a web browser isn't a legitimate part of an OS.

[Xon]

That used to be possible with Windows 98 and I ran it for a long time without IE. In Windows 2000 and later versions, it was no longer possible because MS had deliberately (and unnecessarily) made it too integral a part of the operating system to remove, which is one of the direct results of the browser wars.

As a programmer doing payed work to write a Windows Shell extension, there is so much exposed functionailitywhich Win2k offer which simply isnt avaliable on Win9x it isnt funny. Yes, it is relatively recent that chunks of it have been documented. But the feature set before and after IE's plumming was integrated into the Windows shell is staggering.

Much of the functionaility built into the shell is there because it damn well needs to be. Everything as a file path simply doesnt describe enough meta-data about things. So Windows Shell uses a combination of string paths describing the COM objects to use and where they are mounted.

Every folder you view (via the shell) knows how to describe itself in a universally accessable way(file path with GUID info embedded into it). It knows how to persist settings. It knows how to display meta-data about items inside it. It knows how to display userfriendly names for things.

It is not simple or nice to work with, but it is a fucking complex solution to a hidiously complex problem.

[Xisiqomelir]

The "bundling" argument is pretty weak. Should automakers be prohibited from building GPS systems into their cars because it hurts makers of aftermarket GPS systems? Product integration is a necessary aspect of complex technological devices.

The refusal to share information necessary for interoperability, however, is a very strong argument and one where Microsoft has historically exhibited very poor behaviour. They have never wanted interoperability.

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

Of course you can't remove it. It's integrated. So what does that have to do with my argument? There's a real question here of what you can consider part of an "operating system" in the modern age, and you can't just brush it off by assuming that a web browser isn't a legitimate part of an OS.

I think he was speaking more to the validity of your analogy. You can remove peripherals like GPS trackers and speakers from a car freely.

[Molyneux]

Have you ever tried to remove, say, Internet Explorer from a computer running Windows?

Of course you can't remove it. It's integrated. So what does that have to do with my argument? There's a real question here of what you can consider part of an "operating system" in the modern age, and you can't just brush it off by assuming that a web browser isn't a legitimate part of an OS.

I think he was speaking more to the validity of your analogy. You can remove peripherals like GPS trackers and speakers from a car freely.

Thank you, yes.
Also, there are perfectly valid reasons why one would want a computer running Windows to not have any internet browser at all on it - or one other than Internet Explorer. Generally, an operating system is sold as a cohesive unit - you can't download, say, half of Linux. An internet browser is fully capable of being sold on its own.

[Darth Wong]

I think he was speaking more to the validity of your analogy. You can remove peripherals like GPS trackers and speakers from a car freely.

If removability were a critical part of my argument, that might mean something. Instead, it's just a red-herring. My argument, for those who are either too slow or too dishonest to grasp it, is that people in every industry like to integrate products where appropriate because the resulting package is more attractive to the customer. If you want to be nitpicky about removability, consider the integrated stereo system, which combines many components, each of which can be sold separately, into one integrated device which cannot be separated into its components. The fact is that there is no clean way of determining what kind of product should be kept separate from another, especially in the information age. The web browser is arguably not a separate product at all, but a natural part of any operating system's networking capabilities. Indeed, what is a web browser, if not an interpreter for a recognized networking communication standard?

You can download commercial FTP clients too; does this mean that Microsoft should not bundle an FTP client with its operating system either? And it should remove any FTP interpretation functionality from its Explorer software? Perhaps you should be able to uninstall just that part of Explorer, eh?

[Edi]

Hmm, I must revise my opinion somewhat on the issue of integration in general. Not necessarily always a bad thing, but in conjunction with the interoperability issue and vendor lock-in due to opaque file formats it becomes a serious issue.

I've mostly discussed this issue in the context of MS and the browser wars, which is tied to the interoperability, file formats and illegal business practices. I don't know much about the architecture differences wrt to IE integration in Win2k/XP vs Windows 98, but if the 98 architecture was anything to go by, the IE integration in 2k and XP is unnecessarily obfuscated in order to serve the goals of the anti-trust trial.

With current operating systems and internet access being assumed from the get-go, a browser is a vital application, as are FTP and packing tools. So having them come bundled with the OS is not bad in and of itself, but once opaque file formats and interoperability problems enter the picture, it stops being benign.

[Praxis]

why bother with this "Oh you bundled shit, now nobody wants realplayer" stuff? I've never understood that. Sure, they bundled it. Sure, most people said realplayer was mostly superior (me not being one of those people). But... so? Nothing's stopping you from using realplayer. Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to bundle it's own media software?

The same reason people went after them in the US for bundling IE, the "unwashed masses" just use what comes with their computer: all microsoft software, it is anti-competitive.

Bundling IE wouldn't be that big a deal if it didn't violate so many standards and incorrectly render HTML causing people to write pages so that they view badly on other browsers...

[Admiral Valdemar]

I have no issue with pre-packaged software in systems, since all OSs suffer from this from Windows to Mac OS to Linux. Some pieces can be considered open, others are restricted to certain set-ups and rely on expert teams keeping to themselves to improve the product.

MS is simply trying to obfuscate this issue by claiming to be bullied by the mean EU, where really they simply mean to lock out everyone and keep what they can proprietary, or at the very least, only licensed to select vendors for improvement. You can't just take an API from Windows or Office or what have you and look at it, then think of a way of integrating a third party program better with it like you could with something under the GNU system. The openness of other developers helps improve the product and they still retain copyrights and don't get conned, so why can't MS stop being a jackass and allow others to work with them, rather than rely on their shoddy attempts half the time to do what the consumer wants?

Choice is a good thing. So long as it's a Microsoft product, it seems.

[Xisiqomelir]

I think he was speaking more to the validity of your analogy. You can remove peripherals like GPS trackers and speakers from a car freely.

If removability were a critical part of my argument, that might mean something. Instead, it's just a red-herring. My argument, for those who are either too slow or too dishonest to grasp it, is that people in every industry like to integrate products where appropriate because the resulting package is more attractive to the customer. If you want to be nitpicky about removability, consider the integrated stereo system, which combines many components, each of which can be sold separately, into one integrated device which cannot be separated into its components. The fact is that there is no clean way of determining what kind of product should be kept separate from another, especially in the information age. The web browser is arguably not a separate product at all, but a natural part of any operating system's networking capabilities. Indeed, what is a web browser, if not an interpreter for a recognized networking communication standard?

You can download commercial FTP clients too; does this mean that Microsoft should not bundle an FTP client with its operating system either? And it should remove any FTP interpretation functionality from its Explorer software? Perhaps you should be able to uninstall just that part of Explorer, eh?

Removability is a critical aspect of the legal question. Bundling, in and of itself, needn't necessarily be malicious but forced integration with insurmountable barriers to removal, especially in a market-dominating product, is a clearly intended to provide an advantage to the bundled product by leveraging the installed base of the market-leading product. If the integration can be shown to be gratuitous and for the sole purpose of suppressing competition in the bundled-product market, as it was in United States vs Microsoft, then the organization is at fault.

If I might make my own HiFi analogy, the Microsoft equipment rack is one with every slot empty except for a CD player welded into the bottom. You are free to buy your own CD player (which won't explode through regular use), but you can't remove the Microsoft one. What's worse is that things don't have to be that way at all, since IE and WMA are computer applications, not electronic equipment.