Microsoft to Adopt Further Windows Changes

Associated Press Microsoft to Adopt Further Windows Changes Tuesday March 29, 8:27 am ET Microsoft Says It Will Adopt Further Changes to Windows As Demanded by EU Regulators

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. said Tuesday it will adopt all of the main changes demanded by European Union antitrust regulators for its stripped-down version of Windows sold without the Media Player program. ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. software maker's top lawyer in Europe, Horacio Gutierrez, said the company had contacted the European Commission "to inform them that we have accepted all the main changes they have requested."

Changes to the Windows program will include deleting references to Media Player from product documentation, boxes and help files. Alterations also include creating a software package that allows consumers to put back the programs and settings that were removed from the Media Player-less version, which EU regulators demanded Microsoft to offer consumers.

Microsoft also agreed to restore settings that it had previously removed but which competitors such as RealNetworks Inc. had asked to be restored.

Tuesday's announcement came after Microsoft said Monday it agreed with the EU on a name for its Media Player-less version of Windows, which will be sold in Europe.

Microsoft officials said they had accepted the European Union's offer to call the European version of Windows sold without Media Player " -- with "N" standing for "not with media player."

Microsoft's "XP Professional Edition" will also include the "N" for versions sold without Media Player, which allows users to see video or hear audio downloads.

Gutierrez said Monday the company had "some misgivings" about the new name, but decided to cooperate to ensure quick implementation of the EU antitrust ruling levied against Microsoft last year.

The EU fined Microsoft a record 497 million euros ($665 million) after ruling that the company abusively wielded its Windows software monopoly to lock competitors out of the market.

The EU ordered Microsoft to offer consumers a version of Windows without Media Player that is compatible with competitors' software, such as RealNetworks' RealPlayer, to allow consumers to decide which they wanted to use.

EU spokeswoman Antonia Mochan said the Commission had not finalized its market research analysis on the name change, nor did she have any reaction to Microsoft's announcement Tuesday.

The EU has said it could impose additional prohibitive fines of up to 5 percent of the company's daily global sales if Microsoft refuses to cooperate with last year's ruling.

The company has launched an appeal to last year's antitrust ruling with the EU's European Court of First Instance.

mAllowing exclusive profit through a short period of "ownership" is only a grudgingly allowed means to an end of societal benefit.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Intellectual property is property, pure and simple. You have no more right to profit from my software than you have to rent out my garage. "Property" is a moral concept BEFORE it is a legal one; the function of the law is to prevent theft.

It is NOT just a begrudging payola to eventual "societal" benefit; it is a legal arrangement to -- first -- uphold a morality, then -- second -- with a pragmatic recognition at the end that nobody can own something forever.

Microsoft may have received the single largest fine, but it is dwarfed by the fines that resulted from one investigation. Some of Europe's largest drug manufacturers were caught in a price fixing cartel for vitamins. Hoffman-La Roche, Merck, BASF and others together were fined over 800 million Euros.

You're smoking crack if you think there's some kind of equivalence between a price fixing cartel for vitamins and giving people a free media player with an operating system.

Remember, the whole concept of "IP" is a tradeoff between the inventor and society. At least in America, the inventor is allowed a limited monopoly only in order to advance the arts and sciences. Allowing exclusive profit through a short period of "ownership" is only a grudgingly allowed means to an end of societal benefit.

Right -- and that limited period hasn't expired yet. So hold your horses, Tonto ...

With that in mind, a company found abusing a monopoly position (its IP being used to the detriment of society) can have IP rights limited or revoked. Since Microsoft was found abusing its monopoly position with protocols, the EU is within its rights to force Microsoft to allow fair competition across the board.

MS has already been punished for "abusing a monopoly position" with the largest fine in EU history. Now, you guys want to pile on by forcing MS to reveal what were previously trade secrets FOR FREE! You guys never quit. Well, you're not going to get away with it. The open source charlatans are going to have to open their wallets and blow out the cobwebs in order to license the IP. They won't be able to give it away to their buddies for free -- or by revealing enough so that their buddies will be able to "guess" what the IP does.

You're smoking crack if you think there's some kind of equivalence between a price fixing cartel for vitamins and giving people a free media player with an operating system.

First, I mentioned that to show they didn't go after Microsoft because it's an American company.

But let's see, the monopoly desktop OS holder tries to shut out competition by bundling software. The monopoly desktop OS holder tries to force its way into the server world by not publishing protocols so its monopoly desktop OS will only work best with its servers, and so that other desktop OSs will not work as well with its servers as its monopoly desktop OS.

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Right -- and that limited period hasn't expired yet. So hold your horses, Tonto

The period doesn't matter if that IP was used in an abusive monopoly. The concept of IP was created by the government, and they can yank it for cause.

MS has already been punished for "abusing a monopoly position" with the largest fine in EU history.

There are two parts to antitrust prosecutions: fines and remedy. The fines are punishment for what was done. The remedy is to actually fix the damage done by the abused monopoly. In the case of the media player, there's nothing that can be done, as the market has moved far past the point of any remedy. But the protocol problem can still be fixed.

Now, you guys want to pile on by forcing MS to reveal what were previously trade secrets FOR FREE!

You break the law, you pay. You have a problem with that concept?

First, I mentioned that to show they didn't go after Microsoft because it's an American company.

You didn't prove jackshite. No single European company has been fined as much as MS. And, regardless, the EU has a history of overlooking EU-created monopolies such as Airbus and fining American companies such as Boeing. You can deny that that is the case -- but it's fact.

But let's see, the monopoly desktop OS holder tries to shut out competition by bundling software.

Very clearly, if that was MS's goal, it failed. Ever hear of Apple? RealNetworks? Winamp? There are countless alternatives -- both free and commercial -- for you to argue that consumers have no choice. Those kinds of statements are ridiculous, and you know it.

The monopoly desktop OS holder tries to force its way into the server world by not publishing protocols so its monopoly desktop OS will only work best with its servers, and so that other desktop OSs will not work as well with its servers as its monopoly desktop OS.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft's desktop monopoly hasn't translated into appreciable server market gains.

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Only in the petty minds of EU bureaucrats and anti-MS bigots.

The period doesn't matter if that IP was used in an abusive monopoly. The concept of IP was created by the government, and they can yank it for cause

It amounts to a blatant technology grab by Europe. They know that the market for servers is far more lucrative than desktops -- and they're going to do anything they can to wrest it away from Americans.

There are two parts to antitrust prosecutions: fines and remedy. The fines are punishment for what was done. The remedy is to actually fix the damage done by the abused monopoly.

Ah, I see. So opening up server protocols is going to "fix the damage done" by bundling a free media player? Talk about non-sequitors.

You break the law, you pay. You have a problem with that concept?

As applied by the EU, yes, I do have a problem with that. When the EU decides to fine Airbus for illegal and monopolistic trade subsidies, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, you're selectively and hypocritically twisting the so-called "law" to suit your own purposes.

The article refers to "settings". Any idea what they are refering to?

Yeah, years ago around 98 era MS, Windows Media Player would automatically revert to the default player for all supported formats even if you installed some other player to play them. Also WMP supported .ra and .ram Real Audio formats now it doesn't. In otherwords you now need about 6 different players the get the most from all the EUropeon pr0n sites.

No single European company has been fined as much as MS.

Fines are based on income. Microsoft had the largest single income. Not too hard to understand.

And, regardless, the EU has a history of overlooking EU-created monopolies such as Airbus

You know nothing's illegal if it's the government doing it. Look at Social Security, the world's largest pyramid scheme.

Those kinds of statements are ridiculous, and you know it.

I said tried, not succeeded.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft's desktop monopoly hasn't translated into appreciable server market gains.

Oh yes it has. Microsoft had almost no server marketshare in the mid 90s, and now it's pretty big.

They know that the market for servers is far more lucrative than desktops -- and they're going to do anything they can to wrest it away from Americans.

And give it to other American companies like IBM and Red Hat? Stupid comment.

Ah, I see. So opening up server protocols is going to "fix the damage done" by bundling a free media player? Talk about non-sequitors.

Yeah, that was a big one. You're mixing the two different complaints and two different remedies.

Until then, you're selectively and hypocritically twisting the so-called "law" to suit your own purposes.

You're mixing two laws. Airbus is anti-trust and fair competition. The protocols are IP law.

Fines are based on income. Microsoft had the largest single income. Not too hard to understand.

That makes zero sense. The fine needs to be commensurate to harm done to the market -- not income. You and I both know that comparing a price-fixing pharmaceutical cartel to Microsoft bundling a free media player is a JOKE. Admit it. Otherwise, you have zero credibility here.

You know nothing's illegal if it's the government doing it. Look at Social Security, the world's largest pyramid scheme.

And you'd think that you might question your support for the ridiculous monstrosity that the government has created. But, no, you're cool with it, as long as it's Microsoft or Boeing getting slammed. Dude, your emperor isn't wearing any clothes. You're exposed as a hypocrite.

I said tried, not succeeded.

Ergo, no remedy is required. The market doesn't need one.

Oh yes it has. Microsoft had almost no server marketshare in the mid 90s, and now it's pretty big.

Show me any evidence that MS exceeds 40% market share in the server market. I'd love to see it.

And give it to other American companies like IBM and Red Hat? Stupid comment.

IBM ain't an American company anymore. Most of its employees work outside the US. As for Red Hat, it doesn't own Linux. There are plenty of European distributions of Linux that would gain (Mandrake, etc).

You and I both know that comparing a price-fixing pharmaceutical cartel to Microsoft bundling a free media player is a JOKE.

Why do you keep harping on the media player? The important part is the effort to leverage a monopoly desktop OS into the server market through limited interoperability.

And you'd think that you might question your support for the ridiculous monstrosity that the government has created.

You are going all over the place now. Stay coherent.

Ergo, no remedy is required. The market doesn't need one.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

Show me any evidence that MS exceeds 40% market share in the server market. I'd love to see it.

Where did this arbitrary 40% thing come from? But okay, in 2001 Microsoft was shipping almost half of all servers. That's a HUGE difference.

IBM ain't an American company anymore.

What are you smoking, and can I have some? By that logic neither is Microsoft an American company. Speaking of international ownerships, Novell, an American company, owns SuSE, which is IBM's partner in the Munich Linux deal.

IOW, due to European adoption of Linux, money will be flowing into the accounts of American corporations. I know it's a hard one to grasp, but it's true: there are other American technology companies besides Microsoft, and they make money through free software.

Why do you keep harping on the media player?

Because that's what the fine is all about.

The important part is the effort to leverage a monopoly desktop OS into the server market through limited interoperability.

There's no evidence that server protocols have had any influence on market share.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

You've also been saying that you stand behind the EU's decisions.

Where did this arbitrary 40% thing come from? But okay, in 2001 Microsoft was shipping almost half of all servers. That's a HUGE difference.

You're gonna have to get more crisp in defining what the "server market" comprises. You and I both know that Microsoft isn't shipping half of all "servers". There's plenty of big iron and 'nix boxes in companies that you aren't including in your market.

What are you smoking, and can I have some? By that logic neither is Microsoft an American company.

If most of your employees and revenues come from overseas sources, it's safe to say that you're not an American company. Since MS doesn't fit that category, your comparison is bogus.

Because that's what the fine is all about.

That's partially what the fine is about.

There's no evidence that server protocols have had any influence on market share.

The EU and US obviously found it, otherwise they wouldn't be ordering the release of such information.

You're gonna have to get more crisp in defining what the "server market" comprises. You and I both know that Microsoft isn't shipping half of all "servers".

Servers. 85% Small Business Server. You know big iron and large *NIX ships relatively few units. The only *NIX shipping in any large quantity is Linux, and it's behind Windows. SCO certainly isn't shipping any UNIX these days; in fact, it's struggling to keep current customers (I guess it doesn't help when you sue your customers).

If most of your employees and revenues come from overseas sources, it's safe to say that you're not an American company.

No it isn't. A lot of companies have a very large international reach, yet are American. It's quite possible that GM has more employees overseas than here, given that they run the very popular Opel (Germany) and Vauxhall (Britain) brands, as well as Saab. Same with Ford owning Volvo, Mazda (most of it), Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin, as well as being one of the most popular European car manufacturers under its own name. And that doesn't include the fact that even for their American cars a good chunk of the parts are made outside of this country.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.