EU Skeptical on Microsoft Sharing Plan

[HardOCP News]

European Union regulators, after hearing Microsoft’s offer to share more information, are expressing skepticism of the plan and stated they'll continue to make sure the company is complying with antitrust rules.

Earlier Thursday, Microsoft announced it will be publishing technical information about its products to ensure interoperability with rivals' offerings. It won't make software developers obtain a license or pay royalties or other fees.

 

[pxc]

For non-commercial use.

Of course the EC is monitoring. There are potentials for cash extraction purposes.

 

[Monkey God]

For non-commercial use.

Of course the EC is monitoring. There are potentials for cash extraction purposes.

in socialist europe, large companies are nothing more than targets for government highwaymanship (if thats even a word)

 

[ICOM]

Considering the corruption of corporate America, can you blame them?

 

[theystolemyname]

One of the first things the EU can (try to) do (fruitlessly) is to force microsoft to allow firefox users to use windowsupdate.com. Yes, activex can be totally scrapped for being a worthless liability without any merit whatsoever.

What sort of software is being hindered by microsoft's apparent refusal to publish info about their formats? I use open office excuslively now, and I haven't run across a word, powerpoint or excel file that hasn't displayed properly in it.

 

[GQCarrick]

I could careless, I wouldn't blame Microsoft of they got so fed up that they pulled out of the EU market all together. Maybe the United States should start suing European Car manufacturers and Airbus and other EU companies on the same absurd grounds as the EU sues American companies for.

 

[JethroXP]

Sort of gives one the impression that regardless of what Microsoft did, the EU would be right there to say "Not good enough". Just the fact that they were prepared with a reply *immediately* following the announcement should be indication enough that they already had their opinion formed well in advance.

 

[Monkey God]

Considering the corruption of corporate America, can you blame them?

Yes.
The ends do not justify the means.

 

[MrMike]

Considering the corruption of corporate America, can you blame them?

Um, yeah. It's biting the hand that feeds you. I'd imagine the EU uses Microsoft clients and servers in their offices. Active Directory is pretty much the standard now.

I hope MS does pull out of that market entirely. Not even they deserve to put up with all that bullcrap.

 

[eeyrjmr]

I could careless, I wouldn't blame Microsoft of they got so fed up that they pulled out of the EU market all together. Maybe the United States should start suing European Car manufacturers and Airbus and other EU companies on the same absurd grounds as the EU sues American companies for.

You mean when Boeing took Airbus to the WTO on the grounds that Airbus is being unfairly subsidized by the EU?

Only to get a counter-claim by Airbus to the WTO that Boeing is getting unfair military grants that are equiv of subsidizing

BTW both of these are still being looked into

goes both ways you know... silly americians again


Soo easy for Americans to say EU are using Americans companies as a cash-cow when American companies used EU citezens as cash-cows for soo long

IF you can't do the time, don't do the crime

Basically MS are a convicted anti-trust company in the US and the EU, YET it took the EU and Japan to actually punish Microsoft because the legal system in the US is worse then its presedent

so how abt you janks sort yr backyard out before you start blaming others for doing what you should do...

 

[Monkey God]

You mean when Boeing took Airbus to the WTO on the grounds that Airbus is being unfairly subsidized by the EU?

Only to get a counter-claim by Airbus to the WTO that Boeing is getting unfair military grants that are equiv of subsidizing

BTW both of these are still being looked into

goes both ways you know... silly americians again


Soo easy for Americans to say EU are using Americans companies as a cash-cow when American companies used EU citezens as cash-cows for soo long

IF you can't do the time, don't do the crime

Basically MS are a convicted anti-trust company in the US and the EU, YET it took the EU and Japan to actually punish Microsoft because the legal system in the US is worse then its presedent

so how abt you janks sort yr backyard out before you start blaming others for doing what you should do...

Theres a vast difference between subsidies and "Oh look, a rich company. Lets make up rules as we go along and fine them obscene amounts of money for fun and giggles." One is about governments supporting local companies, and other is about governments acting like a parasite on another company.

I hope thats not to hard for you to understand, but hey, feel free to bash on Americans some more.

 

[Ockie]

You mean when Boeing took Airbus to the WTO on the grounds that Airbus is being unfairly subsidized by the EU?

Only to get a counter-claim by Airbus to the WTO that Boeing is getting unfair military grants that are equiv of subsidizing

BTW both of these are still being looked into

goes both ways you know... silly americians again


Soo easy for Americans to say EU are using Americans companies as a cash-cow when American companies used EU citezens as cash-cows for soo long

IF you can't do the time, don't do the crime

Basically MS are a convicted anti-trust company in the US and the EU, YET it took the EU and Japan to actually punish Microsoft because the legal system in the US is worse then its presedent

so how abt you janks sort yr backyard out before you start blaming others for doing what you should do...

You should be careful on your words, the mods and admins of this site are American as the majority of readers.


As for your airbus comment, nice try... You should be careful about making assumptions here.

 

[ICOM]

Theres a vast difference between subsidies and "Oh look, a rich company. Lets make up rules as we go along and fine them obscene amounts of money for fun and giggles." One is about governments supporting local companies, and other is about governments acting like a parasite on another company.

I hope thats not to hard for you to understand, but hey, feel free to bash on Americans some more.

I'm American but my universal babble translator can't decipher that.

 

[eeyrjmr]

You should be careful on your words, the mods and admins of this site are American as the majority of readers.


As for your airbus comment, nice try... You should be careful about making assumptions here.

ORLY
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/31/cx_da_0531topnews.html

NEW YORK - The World Trade Organization has been remarkably successful in lowering tariffs and other direct trade barriers around the world, but sticky issues like subsidies and discriminatory local laws, which provide indirect trade barriers, remain. One of the stickiest is the issue of airline subsidies for Boeing and Airbus, and that issue is heading for a showdown.

The real problem, though, may be that neither the United States nor the European Union can say no to its local monopolist.

The U.S. announced yesterday that it will file a request for the establishment of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel to resolve a long-simmering civil aircraft dispute.

The Bush Administration, through Trade Representative Robert Portman, assailed the EU for its unwillingness to halt new subsidies for large civilian aircraft to Airbus, and said that EU member states refused to halt $1.7 billion in so-called launch aid.

The EU doesn't deny that it directly subsidizes Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. But it says that the U.S. gives far greater support to Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ) than it gives to Airbus, in the form of federal research and development contracts from NASA and the Pentagon and, more recently, tax breaks from Washington state. These indirect subsidies are in equal violation of WTO rules, the Europeans say, and they are expected to launch a countersuit in the WTO.

 

[pxc]

LOL @ "indirect subsidies". That's a pretty weak argument.

What is that, euro-math? Giving a company $x to work on problem y doesn't mean producing z (jumbo jets) is subsidized. Boeing is a huge company and has many divisions, some primarily civilian and some primarily military, not even counting the sub-contractors they employ. Airbus is a government sponsored manufacturer, with no need for creative stretching of reality to see that.

 

[eeyrjmr]

LOL @ "indirect subsidies". That's a pretty weak argument.

What is that, euro-math? Giving a company $x to work on problem y doesn't mean producing z (jumbo jets) is subsidized. Boeing is a huge company and has many divisions, some primarily civilian and some primarily military, not even counting the sub-contractors they employ. Airbus is a government sponsored manufacturer, with no need for creative stretching of reality to see that.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207500_boeingeu12.html

The governments of the United States and Europe agreed yesterday to stop subsidizing The Boeing Co. and Airbus for the next three months while they try to resolve a decades-old dispute over billions in subsidies to the aircraft makers.

mm should I belive you or the US gov'n that they subsidised Boeing...

 

[JethroXP]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207500_boeingeu12.html

mm should I belive you or the US gov'n that they subsidised Boeing...

If you are going to quote the article, then you should quote the relevent part:

BOEING'S BREAKS

Washington state gave Boeing billions in tax breaks and other incentives to persuade the company to build the 7E7 in the state. While these may eventually be at stake in the trade dispute, yesterday's deal only delays subsidies for three months -- none of the state's payments are to be made until the plane is delivered in 2008. Here are the highlights:


- Tax breaks worth $3 billion over 20 years, only if Boeing builds the 7E7 in Washington, including a 40 percent cut in business-and-occupation taxes for aerospace concerns

- $15.5 million for a rail-barge dock at the Port of Everett, not specifically for Boeing but capable of handling oversize cargo, along with eased shoreline regulations for construction.

- Reforms to the state unemployment and workers compensation systems.

- Transportation reforms valued at $4 billion and financed, in part, by a 5-cents-a-gallon gas tax increase.

Notice that none of that is a direct subsidy, unlike Airbus which quiet litterally has the EU writing checks to pay their bills.

 

[pxc]

Waffles, what a welfare company:

Over its 35 year history, Airbus has benefited from massive amounts of EU member state and EU subsidies that have enabled the company to create a full product line of aircraft and gain a 50 percent share of large commercial aircraft ("LCA") sales and a 60 percent share of the global order book. Every major Airbus aircraft model was financed, in whole or in part, with EU government subsidies taking the form of "launch aid" – financing with no or low rates of interest, and repayment tied to sales of the aircraft. If the sales of a particular model are less than expected, Airbus does not have to repay the remainder of the financing. EU governments have forgiven Airbus debt; provided equity infusions; provided dedicated infrastructure support; and provided substantial amounts of research and development funds for civil aircraft projects.

Wow, the EU created an unfair monopoly and didn't sue itself. Color me shocked.

 

[Nemesis999]

Waffles, what a welfare company:Wow, the EU created an unfair monopoly and didn't sue itself. Color me shocked.

I suggest you look up the definition of monopoly.

Nothing here is being done that isn't done in the US, just done differently. Massive tax deferrals and credits are given to companies in the order of trillions of dollars per year, cash payments for the building of factories in the US, not to mention huge military grants that vastly out-pace the actual costs on top of the fact that the military THEN overpays for the actual good.

The US government pays out more through it's corporate welfare system then any other government in the world.

 

[eeyrjmr]

I suggest you look up the definition of monopoly.

Nothing here is being done that isn't done in the US, just done differently. Massive tax deferrals and credits are given to companies in the order of trillions of dollars per year, cash payments for the building of factories in the US, not to mention huge military grants that vastly out-pace the actual costs on top of the fact that the military THEN overpays for the actual good.

The US government pays out more through it's corporate welfare system then any other government in the world.

don't bother trying to explain it to them
They think the US does nothing wrong and US companies never break any rules/laws/legislation and the EU is just out for a quick buck

 

[pxc]

I suggest you look up the definition of monopoly.

That's a luxury the EC has. It can define "unfair monopoly" or "unfair competition" any way it pleases. While you and the other guy are pointing out smoke as a comdemnation of wrongdoing, there's a raging fire in your back yard that you completely dismiss.

Nothing here is being done that isn't done in the US, just done differently. Massive tax deferrals and credits are given to companies in the order of trillions of dollars per year, cash payments for the building of factories in the US, not to mention huge military grants that vastly out-pace the actual costs on top of the fact that the military THEN overpays for the actual good.

Are you suggesting that the EC is wrong for selectively prosecuting common business practices or that the US FTC should seek remedies from EU companies for the same practices?

The US government pays out more through it's corporate welfare system then any other government in the world.

Nice choice of words. Keep the EU as a unit only when you it suits you. As a whole, the EU is the ultimate welfare state, even taxing foreign companies to keep it going.

 

[ianken]

Considering the corruption of corporate America, can you blame them?

Yeah, because Euro-spec companies are all rainbows, puppies and unicorns!

 

[ianken]

don't bother trying to explain it to them
They think the US does nothing wrong and US companies never break any rules/laws/legislation and the EU is just out for a quick buck

No. We just think the EU is full of whiny ass hypocrites.

 

[pxc]

No. We just think the EU is full of whiny ass hypocrites.

Yep. Any measures the EC takes, no matter how bizarre or anti-consumer, should at least be applied consistently. They are not and that's the problem.

 

[eeyrjmr]

No. We just think the EU is full of whiny ass hypocrites.

riiight so insulting Americans on this forum raises the possiblity of a ban (backread) YET it is ok to insult Europeans

and you have the gaul to say Europeans are whiny ass hypocrites

when
1) every time MS are investigated by the EU the americans whine
2) its ok to insult EU but you wont accept any comments against America

I think you need to look up the definition of both "whiny" and "hypocrite"
or is this another example of "do as I say, not do as i do" from America...

 

[Monkey God]

riiight so insulting Americans on this forum raises the possiblity of a ban (backread) YET it is ok to insult Europeans

and you have the gaul to say Europeans are whiny ass hypocrites

when
1) every time MS are investigated by the EU the americans whine
2) its ok to insult EU but you wont accept any comments against America

Reading comprehension 101
EU <> Europeans
One is a government, one is a group of people.
See, if you insult the US government, most Americans would AGREE with you. We just dont like being insulted as a people, which is what YOU did. We were giving crap to the EU, not to all Europeans. See how that works?

I think you need to look up the definition of both "whiny" and "hypocrite"
or is this another example of "do as I say, not do as i do" from America...

And this is a perfect example of bad behavior which just makes YOU as a person (not all Euros) look immature. Given the most tiny of opportunities, Europeans just *love* to insult and jump on the lets hate on Americans bandwagon. All the cool kids are doing it!

 

[runner6m]

Yep. Any measures the EC takes, no matter how bizarre or anti-consumer, should at least be applied consistently. They are not and that's the problem.

Indeed. We Americans are quick, quicker than probably anyone else to attack Microsoft on their business practices. The fact that people are defending them is a surprise and should show something else seems to be going on.

riiight so insulting Americans on this forum raises the possiblity of a ban (backread) YET it is ok to insult Europeans

and you have the gaul to say Europeans are whiny ass hypocrites

when
1) every time MS are investigated by the EU the americans whine
2) its ok to insult EU but you wont accept any comments against America

I think you need to look up the definition of both "whiny" and "hypocrite"
or is this another example of "do as I say, not do as i do" from America...

Your post shows that you're not really reading, you're just looking for an excuse to hurl insults. He didn't say "Europeans" are whiny ass hypocrites, he said the "EU" was, so stop misquoting him to fuel your own desire to maliciously flame. I would type more but "Monkey God"' perfectly sums it up here, so, QFT:

Reading comprehension 101
EU <> Europeans
One is a government, one is a group of people.
See, if you insult the US government, most Americans would AGREE with you. We just dont like being insulted as a people, which is what YOU did. We were giving crap to the EU, not to all Europeans. See how that works?


And this is a perfect example of bad behavior which just makes YOU as a person (not all Euros) look immature. Given the most tiny of opportunities, Europeans just *love* to insult and jump on the lets hate on Americans bandwagon. All the cool kids are doing it!

 

[kc77]

Overall I believe the posts from both Europeans and Americans criticizing our (U.S) Government are quite valid. Since when did the FTC do it's job to protect American citizens without some pressure exerted by regular American citizens? In fact MS wasn't even hauled into court without school districts, and other U.S companies around the country suing for their monopolistic practices and therefore illegal practices within our country. Our government wouldn't have lifted a finger if local senators weren't afraid of losing their jobs due to inaction.

Most Americans are so blinded by their televisions that most things that happen around us we could care less about until it's in our backyard then all of a sudden we want action??? Hmm Right. And if that weren't enough you have people within our country (US) that would prefer if a business destroys someone's life or the surrounding environment that the person seeking restitution through our court system barely receive any monetary damages at all.. What kind of sense does that make??? If a cop gave you a speeding ticket for $5, would you really be worried about the next infraction?

I have worked on quite a few government contracts, and if you honestly think that our government doesn't subsidize, bail out, or financially support big U.S business you should definitely check out some Antarctic beach front property I have to sell you... it's fabulous.

Also fellow American's while we live in a capitalistic society do you really think that our government doesn't have socialized services??? How many interstates have you driven on that were bought and paid for by every American that pays his or her taxes ? If you think they are privately owned..... hey I've got a bridge to sell you .... it too would be a fabulous investment.

Overall while none of us likes it when another country points out our flaws it is our responsibility as Americans to recognize them and fix them. It is ignorant to pretend they don't exist or try to prevent fellow Americans from righting the wrongs of our government or our U.S companies.

 

[Monkey God]

Who is doing that here kc77, or are you just ranting? (ignorant or pretending these problems dont exist)
Really, I want to know.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Reading comprehension 101
EU <> Europeans
One is a government, one is a group of people.
See, if you insult the US government, most Americans would AGREE with you. We just dont like being insulted as a people, which is what YOU did. We were giving crap to the EU, not to all Europeans. See how that works?

If it was a US gov'n thing then sure you would have a point. BUT in this instance it is American citizens thus the targeting, the US gov'n back these cases against MS thus the noise coming from ppl here are purly Americans and not the gov'n
True EU != Europeans so you may have a point there, the fact is time and time again on this forums Americans post in response the EU legality against american companies like it is some crime


WAKE UP!!! it is those companies that have commited the crime!!! lots of american companies operate in the EU legally and never get a sniff from the commision, likewise lots of Japanese, switzerland, Oz... operate in EU abiding by EU laws quite happily


HOWEVER some companies around the world think that they are above the law and try todo things their way





18th May 1998 a set of civil actions were filed against MS in America w.r.t. browser bundling.


5th Nov 1999 They were found guilty: Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.




26th Sept 2000 Appeal launched


6th Sept 2001, Appeal won and the call to break MS up squashed and a lesser punishment for the convicted Monopolistic company were imposed




12Nov 2007 the ruling (from the appeal) where MS's activities were to be watched was due to expire, but was extended for another 2years



SO already the U.S. gov'n think MS activities are dodgy.













In 1993 Novell logged a complaint with the EU w.r.t. MS's licensing practices (todo with royalties having to always be paid to MS for every PC sold whether or not windows was or wasn't on said equipment)


1994 MS stopped such practices


1998 Sun entered this complaint and brought up the whole network inter-operability and the EU widened its investigation into whether MS were acting illegally to keep their monopoly.


In 2004 MS were ordered to pay a E495m fine and unbundle WMP & divulge server information




MS releases an unbundled WMP version of XP... and this is when it gets interesting...


MS provide the source code to Windows server 2003 as its answer to server information on the day of the original deadline.


Dec 2005 the EU states that MS are non-compliment with their ruling and that MS hasn't divulged information w.r.t. Their server inter-operability and a E2m a day fine was imposed


MS start appeal case




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/business/worldbusiness/31soft.html


MS complained to the U.S. gov'n abt how it is being targeted. The U.S. Gov'n response?

U.S. Asks EU to be fair in MS case

The EU then increases the fine since MS are just ignoring their ruling


17th Sept 2007 MS looses their appeal against the EU commission and pays in full


Terms w.r.t. server protocol were written up. EU does not agree to them (silly high fee and only to MS-approved companies). Finally settled on £10,000 on-off payment for those that want the info










Now all the way through the EU vs MS all the U.S. Gov'n have said was "just be fair" and the EU have done that. There are no report that the U.S. gov'n have targeted SM unfairly have there? thus statements here by Americans is the views of those American ppl and NOT of the U.S. Gov'n which so far have not objected to these actions to try to hold MS accountable for their crimes






Now back to the OP.

EU Sceptical on Microsoft Sharing Plan

The EU has the most experience with MS when it comes to what they say they will do and what they actually do. IT too multiple fines each increasing in size before MS even started to comply with the ruling




Thus the EU is right to be sceptical of MS new found love of being "open"


MS have a history of breaking competition laws and trying to flout laws to keep doing what they do. The U.S. Legal system couldn't even stand up against them, it has take EU courts and Japanese courts to punish MS for their activity and at least start MS changing their ways


What has come out of these cases
Well now SAMBA have the networking protocol information so they can correct their reverse-engineered implementation of SMB/CIFS/AD thus increasing competition in networking and SAMBA's moto is “Opening Windows to a Wider World” and now SAMBA4 can really do this so you can have a seamless mixed-network of LINUX,BSD,UNIX and Windows servers&clients if you so wish (something you cannot do atm due to lockin) thus MS is competing on the merits of its software and NOT riding the lockin wave


Also the EU pushed MS to open their Office formats, (which when voting starts next week and results out after that.. not to say MSOOXML will make it as an ISO since it breaks a lot of ISO requirement, plus MS is being investigated into how they swung votes) thus allowing the MS-Office suite to compete on the merits of its abilities and NOT riding the lockin wave...




I fail to see how some ppl think MS are the good guys (with their track record), or how they think the EU is targeting them (the EU commission can only act within the scope of the laws, and they would stop if pressured by the U.S. Government)

 

[eeyrjmr]

Overall I believe the posts from both Europeans and Americans criticizing our (U.S) Government are quite valid. Since when did the FTC do it's job to protect American citizens without some pressure exerted by regular American citizens? In fact MS wasn't even hauled into court without school districts, and other U.S companies around the country suing for their monopolistic practices and therefore illegal practices within our country. Our government wouldn't have lifted a finger if local senators weren't afraid of losing their jobs due to inaction.

Most Americans are so blinded by their televisions that most things that happen around us we could care less about until it's in our backyard then all of a sudden we want action??? Hmm Right. And if that weren't enough you have people within our country (US) that would prefer if a business destroys someone's life or the surrounding environment that the person seeking restitution through our court system barely receive any monetary damages at all.. What kind of sense does that make??? If a cop gave you a speeding ticket for $5, would you really be worried about the next infraction?

I have worked on quite a few government contracts, and if you honestly think that our government doesn't subsidize, bail out, or financially support big U.S business you should definitely check out some Antarctic beach front property I have to sell you... it's fabulous.

Also fellow American's while we live in a capitalistic society do you really think that our government doesn't have socialized services??? How many interstates have you driven on that were bought and paid for by every American that pays his or her taxes ? If you think they are privately owned..... hey I've got a bridge to sell you .... it too would be a fabulous investment.

Overall while none of us likes it when another country points out our flaws it is our responsibility as Americans to recognize them and fix them. It is ignorant to pretend they don't exist or try to prevent fellow Americans from righting the wrongs of our government or our U.S companies.

WFT!

 

[kc77]

Monkey God Limp Gawd, 10 Months

Monkey God is offline Report Post
Who is doing that here kc77, or are you just ranting? (ignorant or pretending these problems dont exist)
Really, I want to know.

Can you be a little bit more specific in your question? I have no problem answering any questions just need to know what you are referring to as my previous post covers a wide array of topics which are wrapped up in this thread. Thanks