http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7266629.stm
In a nutshell, the EU are fining Microsoft $1.4bn for failing to provide key code from its software to rival software makers, which the EU says is abusing its position in the market.
Now then, I'm not as up on things like this as some people here, but why *should* they provide this to rivals? And what has it got to do with the EU?
Could anyone more knowledgeable enlighten me?
EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn
The thing that annoys me (without passing judgment on whether I think it is or is not fair, as I don't know the intricacies), is beacuse MS seems to get targeted purely because of its size. Apple don't encounter such extreme lawsuits, despite the fact that their behaviour is equal or worse to that of MS (they bundle a browser and media player and e-mail client and IM client and search feature and don't make it that easy to switch to something else).
The courts seem to let people get away with earning a cheap, unfair buck off MS. For example, the EOLAS patent which evidently shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.
The courts seem to let people get away with earning a cheap, unfair buck off MS. For example, the EOLAS patent which evidently shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I can't see the justification for one company demanding another's business secrets.
One of my customers recently asked for a breakdown of my profit margins on items I sold to him. My gut instinct was to tell them to piss off, but the directors of the company have decided to furnish the client with the answers lest we lose their business.
Just doesn't seem right to me.
One of my customers recently asked for a breakdown of my profit margins on items I sold to him. My gut instinct was to tell them to piss off, but the directors of the company have decided to furnish the client with the answers lest we lose their business.
Just doesn't seem right to me.
I've always *really* hated the supposed anti-competition crusade that the EU and Competition Commission pursue, but that is because I'm a wee bit of a raging capitalist whore.
But, MS gets it particularly bad, and it irritates me. A lot. They should never be arbitrarily forced to weaken their market position just because someone moans about theirs. If increased interoperability was a good business decision (which it certainly could be, without being legislated into doing it), then it would be happening to a greater extent already. And I do think the other analogies are completely valid - the idea of one dominant product spilling its secrets to others so that they can all have a fair crack of the whip is nothing short of absurd.
Is there any sort of appeal process that MS would have even the slightest chance of success with?
But, MS gets it particularly bad, and it irritates me. A lot. They should never be arbitrarily forced to weaken their market position just because someone moans about theirs. If increased interoperability was a good business decision (which it certainly could be, without being legislated into doing it), then it would be happening to a greater extent already. And I do think the other analogies are completely valid - the idea of one dominant product spilling its secrets to others so that they can all have a fair crack of the whip is nothing short of absurd.
Is there any sort of appeal process that MS would have even the slightest chance of success with?
I don't understand any "no bundling" argument. MS should be allowed to bundle whatever the hell it likes with its computers, and the market will decide if it's popular. I wonder how Windows Vista N is selling?Netizen wrote:The media player bundling part of the argument I can sort-of understand, but why is bundling IE considered unfair? If you have no browser, how the hell are you meant to download Firefox or Opera?
Also: does anyone remember the huge fuss Adobe made appealing and threatening legal action when Office was planning to integrate Save As PDF to Office? And this after Adobe lobbied so hard for PDF to be accepted as an Open Standard? Now you have to go through a cumbersome download to get that.
It's ridiculous that MS isn't allowed to compete on the same level as Apple and Open Office's Office offerings.
Well yes, of course I realise it's all nonsense. If you want to play every format in popular use you'll have to download several media players anyway, so it's a moot point for all concerned. I've certainly never heard of anyone complaining it's too hard for Realplayer to take over everything without asking!cdd wrote:I don't understand any "no bundling" argument. MS should be allowed to bundle whatever the hell it likes with its computers, and the market will decide if it's popular. I wonder how Windows Vista N is selling?
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 2020
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
I'm glad that you all share my thoughts on this! I completely agree about the whole making a quick buck off a big company thing, I just can't understand why people complain that a product or company is so popular. It's like the constant mentions on DigitalSpy of $ky, which irritates me immensely. People seem to resent the fact that a company is the market leader in what it does, despite the fact that people obviously like and want said product.
And also the mention of Apple - I may have ditched Windows for my Mac, but I would say it was a hell of a lot easier finding programmes on Windows for multimedia etc than it is with Apple. I've had to download an array of different programmes just to satisfy my bestiality addiction.
And also the mention of Apple - I may have ditched Windows for my Mac, but I would say it was a hell of a lot easier finding programmes on Windows for multimedia etc than it is with Apple. I've had to download an array of different programmes just to satisfy my bestiality addiction.
I'm actually quite relieved to see some of the opinions expressed here - I too can't understand Brussels' thinking on this. And issues of competition and regulation are a passion of mine.
The question is simply this: is Microsoft engaging in anti-competitive conduct, or is it just a tough competitor? To my mind, they're just a tough competitor. There's no doubt that Microsoft has tremendous market power - Windows is the dominant OS, which the vast majority of consumers use. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Microsoft is not actively stopping anyone else from starting up a rival OS, but most firms just don't see it as commercially viable to do so. There are open source solutions out there, and there are different products for niche markets, but by and large the monopoly that Microsoft effectively has is not something that they have deliberately set up - although they clearly benefit from it. Computer users benefit from having a common standard, which Microsoft to all intents and purposes offers through Windows.
In saying that, the standard does have a problem. Microsoft has created the standard, and therefore its own products are likely to have an advantage. Interoperability is an important issue. If Microsoft deliberately sets out to make it difficult for non-Microsoft products to be used on computers running Windows, then that is anti-competitive conduct. It restricts consumer choice. There is some evidence that Microsoft has done this in the past, however I'm not convinced that they're still doing this today. Microsoft may still be a tough competitor, but in my view, it plays more 'fairly' that it has in the past. I certainly don't agree that Microsoft should have to hand over proprietary coding to rivals. The coding is the product Microsoft offers. If Microsoft reveals to the world how Windows works, then competitors will find it much easier to simply replicate it and offer the same thing. That is a bad outcome - it discourages innovation, and destroys commercial enterprise.
There is a related issue associated with bundling. This has emerged with things like IE and Windows Media Player. There is a suggestion that by packaging these products within Windows, it means consumers don't go out and buy other products - a Netscape web-browser in the old days, or software like Real Player or QuickTime or whatever else. Yet to my mind, that gives too narrow a definition to what an OS should be. The beauty of Windows, despite any concerns about bugs and security, is that it has made the world of computing relatively more accessible to people. Others, like Apple in particular, have obviously contributed to that - but really, it's Microsoft that gets a lot of the credit, because that's what people have bought into. To tech-heads, sure, an OS gives them a platform on which they can install a bunch of software that they want to do X, Y and Z. But to Joe Bloggs, the layman, they buy a computer and they want it to work. They want to check e-mails, surf the internet, play some media files, type some documents up (even within Windows, there's often a basic word processor, although MS Office is obviously a separate package). Is it really a bad thing that Microsoft delivers those functions to users within Windows? Clearly the EU does. Yet nothing has stopped me from installing Firefox or Netscape before it on my computer, nothing has stopped me from running RealPlayer, QuickTime and Winamp. Microsoft hasn't taken any choices away from me as a consumer - I don't see how it's anti-competitive.
Contrast that to Apple though, whose conduct with the iPhone has been absolutely disgraceful in my view. I admit, it's a shameless plug, but I covered this issue earlier in the week on my blog, and I don't want to necessarily repeat all of it again. By way of precis though, the exclusivity arrangements between Apple and mobile phone carriers are entirely anti-competitive in nature. These are forcing people who want to buy an iPhone to sign up to a carrier of Apple's choosing - not the consumer's. In the US, it's AT&T; in the UK I understand it's O2. I know there are similar (though not identical) arrangements in Germany and France, and I expect that Apple will try to launch the iPhone in other markets with similar schemes. Yet where are the competition authorities? Where are the consumer watchdogs? Instead Brussels would rather keep beating Microsoft over the head for perceived grievances that the rest of the world has seldom taken issue with. And consumers are left worse off for it.
The question is simply this: is Microsoft engaging in anti-competitive conduct, or is it just a tough competitor? To my mind, they're just a tough competitor. There's no doubt that Microsoft has tremendous market power - Windows is the dominant OS, which the vast majority of consumers use. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Microsoft is not actively stopping anyone else from starting up a rival OS, but most firms just don't see it as commercially viable to do so. There are open source solutions out there, and there are different products for niche markets, but by and large the monopoly that Microsoft effectively has is not something that they have deliberately set up - although they clearly benefit from it. Computer users benefit from having a common standard, which Microsoft to all intents and purposes offers through Windows.
In saying that, the standard does have a problem. Microsoft has created the standard, and therefore its own products are likely to have an advantage. Interoperability is an important issue. If Microsoft deliberately sets out to make it difficult for non-Microsoft products to be used on computers running Windows, then that is anti-competitive conduct. It restricts consumer choice. There is some evidence that Microsoft has done this in the past, however I'm not convinced that they're still doing this today. Microsoft may still be a tough competitor, but in my view, it plays more 'fairly' that it has in the past. I certainly don't agree that Microsoft should have to hand over proprietary coding to rivals. The coding is the product Microsoft offers. If Microsoft reveals to the world how Windows works, then competitors will find it much easier to simply replicate it and offer the same thing. That is a bad outcome - it discourages innovation, and destroys commercial enterprise.
There is a related issue associated with bundling. This has emerged with things like IE and Windows Media Player. There is a suggestion that by packaging these products within Windows, it means consumers don't go out and buy other products - a Netscape web-browser in the old days, or software like Real Player or QuickTime or whatever else. Yet to my mind, that gives too narrow a definition to what an OS should be. The beauty of Windows, despite any concerns about bugs and security, is that it has made the world of computing relatively more accessible to people. Others, like Apple in particular, have obviously contributed to that - but really, it's Microsoft that gets a lot of the credit, because that's what people have bought into. To tech-heads, sure, an OS gives them a platform on which they can install a bunch of software that they want to do X, Y and Z. But to Joe Bloggs, the layman, they buy a computer and they want it to work. They want to check e-mails, surf the internet, play some media files, type some documents up (even within Windows, there's often a basic word processor, although MS Office is obviously a separate package). Is it really a bad thing that Microsoft delivers those functions to users within Windows? Clearly the EU does. Yet nothing has stopped me from installing Firefox or Netscape before it on my computer, nothing has stopped me from running RealPlayer, QuickTime and Winamp. Microsoft hasn't taken any choices away from me as a consumer - I don't see how it's anti-competitive.
Contrast that to Apple though, whose conduct with the iPhone has been absolutely disgraceful in my view. I admit, it's a shameless plug, but I covered this issue earlier in the week on my blog, and I don't want to necessarily repeat all of it again. By way of precis though, the exclusivity arrangements between Apple and mobile phone carriers are entirely anti-competitive in nature. These are forcing people who want to buy an iPhone to sign up to a carrier of Apple's choosing - not the consumer's. In the US, it's AT&T; in the UK I understand it's O2. I know there are similar (though not identical) arrangements in Germany and France, and I expect that Apple will try to launch the iPhone in other markets with similar schemes. Yet where are the competition authorities? Where are the consumer watchdogs? Instead Brussels would rather keep beating Microsoft over the head for perceived grievances that the rest of the world has seldom taken issue with. And consumers are left worse off for it.
