Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EC may force Microsoft to sell two Windows versions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EC may force Microsoft to sell two Windows versions

    European Commissioner for competition Mario Monti may demand that Microsoft Corp. sell two versions of its ubiquitous operating system, Windows, in Europe: one with Media Player inside as it does at present, and another with the music and video playing software stripped out and sold separately, people close to the case said on Tuesday.

    Monti may also demand that Microsoft itself should propose "within a few months of a ruling" what Windows computer code it should reveal in order to make the operating system fully interoperable with rival software makers' programs for servers, which drive networks of PCs, one of the people said.

    These likely remedies will come attached to a negative ruling that brands Microsoft an abusive monopolist, unless a settlement is reached during the next month to six weeks. A negative ruling is expected to carry with it a fine of at least $100 million.

    Neither the Commission nor Microsoft would comment on the remedies. A Microsoft spokesman said the company is still pursuing "an amicable settlement."

    An internal consultation within the European Commission has finished, and the proposed negative ruling drafted by the competition department in January has emerged "almost untouched", the person who insisted on anonymity said.

    Erkki Liikanen, the commissioner for the information society, urged Monti to be tougher on Microsoft over the Media Player issue, while Frits Bolkestein, the commissioner for the internal market, warned Monti not to infringe Microsoft's intellectual property in the part of the ruling that concerns interoperability, the person said.

    Last August the Commission told Microsoft that its practice of bundling Media Player into Windows amounted to an abuse of the operating system's dominant position because it placed rival music and video players at a disadvantage.

    The Commission agreed with Microsoft's rivals, which argue that firms offering content such as record companies and Hollywood studios, which can be played on media players, will increasingly tailor their products exclusively for Microsoft's Media Player, because it will be the only player they are sure that people will have on their PCs.

    Microsoft has argued that unbundling Media Player from Windows would prevent the operating system from working properly. It also fears the precedent that would be set if it did agree to separate Media Player from Windows.

    Future software products, such as an Internet search engine which Microsoft plans to launch to compete with the Google search engine, count on the bundling business model Microsoft has employed with all its most successful software products including Internet Explorer, Word and Outlook Express.

    Another person close to the case said the two operating systems solution would ensure consumer choice, while allowing Microsoft to preserve its existing business model.

    The separate issue concerning interoperability is seen as the easier of the two to solve, the second person said. Last August the Commission said that Windows for PCs runs better with Microsoft's own server software than it does with competing products from companies including Sun Microsystems Inc.

    This advantage amounts to an abuse of Windows' dominance, and the Commission urged Microsoft to reveal enough of the secret code that runs Windows to competitors to allow them to make server software that can run as smoothly with Windows as Microsoft's own server software.

    The draft decision may order Microsoft to decide what must be revealed about Windows in order to ensure interoperability. "If the company fails to comply with the order it would open itself up to legal action in any national court in the European Union," one person close to the talks said, adding: "A negative ruling would set a dangerous legal precedent for Microsoft."

    Bolkestein warned that ordering Microsoft to reveal code, which is protected by copyright, and to a lesser extent by patents, could make the Commission vulnerable to a legal challenge by the company at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

    Bolkestein's responsibilities include drafting Union-wide intellectual property protection laws. His department and Monti's team of competition regulators have often fought over how far rights holders should be allowed to protect their inventions.

    European case law appears equally divided. Two separate cases involving the largest collector of pharmaceutical sales and prescription data in the world, U.S.-based IMS Health, appear to contradict each other on the question on intellectual property rights.

    The Court overturned a Commission decision from 2001 ordering the firm to license the way it organizes drug sales data from the German market, because it said such compulsory licensing amounted to an infringement of IMS's intellectual property rights.

    However, last year in a separate case against IMS referred to Luxembourg by a German court, a judge said the company might be abusing its dominant position by refusing to license the way it structures its information about the German market. A final ruling in this second case is expected in the coming months.


  • #2
    Re: EC may force Microsoft to sell two Windows versions

    Originally posted by ayoub_ibrahim
    A negative ruling is expected to carry with it a fine of at least $100 million.
    Small change.
    "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

    Comment


    • #3
      this is so full of crap....

      a media player is as much part of an OS as is an internet browser. It's close to being a cornerstone of the use of an OS nowadays. As far as I care, MS may include stuff like a virusscanner in windows as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh, I disagree completely. What is next? Office? These may be essential applications for everyday use, but that does not make it to belong to be a part of an OS. They may *include* anything they want AFAIAC, but that is not the same as integrating it.
        Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
        [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

        Comment


        • #5
          who defines what should be in an OS or not? where can I find the definition?

          Why should MS be allowed to integrate a webbrowser into an OS? disk partitioning&formatting software? notepad? file explorer?

          Comment


          • #6
            Are we disgreeing here? I don't think MS should be allowed to integrate a webbrowser in the sense that you can't get it out or that for some reason windows will not perform OS operations without it. Bundling it is fine by me.
            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess it only matters when your OS has become the defacto standard. When one looks at the history of industry standards, one important thing to note about them is that nobody "owns" them. The standard railroad track gauge in the US (and Europe I believe) is 4 feet 8 1/2 inches. Does Union Pacific or any other company get paid for the use of this gauge? No. Screws come in standard sizes (#8, #6, #4, etc.) Does anyone get royalties for this? No. An operating system, once it becomes a standard, should not be something profits can be made on. It is simply a tool for other programs to access a computer. That's how it is with Linux/Unix, no matter what gas SCO blows into the wind. RedHat does not sell Linux, they sell their implementation of Linux. Software that works on Red Hat should theoretically work just as well on Debian, and so forth. Microsoft has shown just what a danger a monopoly can be.. the more stuff they add to Windows and call a part of the "operating system," the fewer opportunities exist for competition to innovate.

              Comment


              • #8
                they integrate it because it serves as a fall-back function.

                Do you think that John Doe would have ANY idea what to do if Internet Explorer was easily uninstallable and he uninstalled it by accident?
                Last edited by dZeus; 25 February 2004, 06:18.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dZeus
                  they integrate it because it serves as a fall-back function.

                  Do you think that John Die would have ANY idea what to do if Internet Explorer was easily uninstallable and he uninstalled it by accident?
                  John Die? LOL

                  More opportunity for computer specialists, then.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I concur with KVH here.

                    I know nothing about OS programming, but "integrating" something as in making it indispensible for the OS to work does not seem to me to be anything like a fall-back function. Rather, it makes it more likely to fail as there is more that can fail and is indispensible.

                    I don't have a good definition of an OS or what should and should not be part of it, but to me it seems that an OS should allow all *real* devices to be operated by the user. This is different from, e.g., using machine independent protocols as HTML, mp3 and .txt files.
                    Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                    [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KvHagedorn
                      {Useless rambling about unrelated topics such as railroads and screw sizes snipped.}

                      An operating system, once it becomes a standard, should not be something profits can be made on. It is simply a tool for other programs to access a computer.
                      Wow. I'm sure Sun, IBM, Digital, and Apple would love to hear your thoughts on this. With the exception of Linux, EVERYONE SELLS OPERATING SYSTEMS. Cope. It's the way computing has always been. Software has ALWAYS ended up being more pricey than the hardware it runs on.

                      [qoute]That's how it is with Linux/Unix, no matter what gas SCO blows into the wind. RedHat does not sell Linux, they sell their implementation of Linux. Software that works on Red Hat should theoretically work just as well on Debian, and so forth. [/quote]

                      Ahh but it doesn't. It doesn't work like that and never has. Linux is a gigantic festering mess. The money you save not paying for it is MORE than spent in the time it takes you to get the damn thing running properly.

                      Microsoft has shown just what a danger a monopoly can be.. the more stuff they add to Windows and call a part of the "operating system," the fewer opportunities exist for competition to innovate.
                      That's an interesting take on things. Here's MY take.

                      Before Windows Media Player got upgraded, as recently as just a couple years ago, I was forced to install as many as 5 or 6 COMMERCIAL media players on my machine. One for DVD's, one for audio, one for video - used to be, I had to install a SEPARATE media player for MPEG! I _still_ have to install a separate, COMMERCIAL media player in order to play back Quicktime, which is arguably one of the most used standards on the net.

                      Now that Media Player is on V9, I only have to install Winamp - and even that is only because I like it better. And it's free. Microsoft just SAVED me hundreds of dollars.

                      Your arguments, this time, are specious and silly.

                      - Gurm
                      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                      I'm the least you could do
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I would still get screwed

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        But Gurm, no one is saying that MS should not have made an all-round media player, are they?

                        Now, offering windows without it, which should I guess be cheaper than windows with it, would save me a few bucks which I could use to buy another universal media player? Does not exist? Well, if there is more of a market for it, it might just be made, it might even be better than MS's offering.
                        Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                        [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Actually, AFAIK, much of the complaint is not about MS having a monopoly on x86 OS, but about using that monopoly to further monopolise other types of software.
                          Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                          [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Umfriend
                            But Gurm, no one is saying that MS should not have made an all-round media player, are they?

                            Now, offering windows without it, which should I guess be cheaper than windows with it, would save me a few bucks which I could use to buy another universal media player? Does not exist? Well, if there is more of a market for it, it might just be made, it might even be better than MS's offering.
                            Here's how I would price it if I were MS:

                            XP with MP $100*
                            XP without MP $150

                            Why would they spend money implimenting this and then chare LESS for the result?

                            Chuck

                            * disclaimer: I have no idea how much XP actualy costs, I get my MS software free.
                            Chuck
                            秋音的爸爸

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why would they spend money implimenting this and then chare LESS for the result?
                              As the development of MP costs money, I assume that, if it is not indispensible to the OS, as it should be IMO, there is little cost, if at all, to implementing it without. Seems sensible to me at least. The idea is more that if currently for instance, XP+MP costs $100, they could offer XP at $90 and XP+MP at $120. If others than can create a competing product at less then $30, consumers might opt for that. Now, there is $0 to compete for, that is, innovate for.
                              Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                              [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X