I honestly don't know what the EU is trying to do here. This just sounds kinda stupid.
Posted on 03/01/2007 8:04:52 AM PST by ShadowAce
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union threatened Microsoft Corp. on Thursday with fines as high as $4 million a day, claiming the software company was still not offering a fair deal to rivals seeking to make their products more compatible with Windows.
Microsoft said the EU Commission's demands were not reasonable. "We believe we have been fair in setting" prices for the information, said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith.
"It is hard to see how the Commission can argue that even patented innovation must be made available for free," he said in a statement.
The EU complained that three years after a landmark antitrust ruling to open up the market, the world's largest software maker still refused to cooperate. "This is a company which apparently does not like to have to conform with antitrust decisions," said EU Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Under a 2004 antitrust ruling by the European Union, Microsoft had to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, allowing its competitors to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers.
Under a so-called "statement of objections" released Thursday, the EU's executive Commission said there was "no significant innovation" in the requested information. It also rejected 1,500 pages of submissions by Microsoft over the past three months and said Microsoft's price proposals were unreasonable.
"I am therefore again obliged to take formal measures to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations," EU Antitrust Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement.
Smith complained Microsoft had asked for feedback half a year ago and only on Thursday received a reply thinly veiled in a threat.
"We're disappointed that this feedback is coming six months later and in its present form, but were committed to working hard to address the Commissions Statement of Objections," said Smith.
He added "the findings appear to be an attempt to regulate the pricing of our intellectual property rights on a global basis" something which would go beyond the jurisdiction of the European Commission.
Microsoft has four weeks to reply to the Commission after which the EU could impose fines going as high as 3 million euros ($4 million) a day, Todd said.
Work group servers are designed to let numerous users share and exchange information on projects so that groups of workers located near or far from their offices can collaborate on joint projects.
"The royalty demands are intended to force every competitor out of the market," said Simon Awde, the chairman of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a group of Microsoft rivals.
At a hearing last year, EU regulators used evidence from IBM Corp., Novell Inc., Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. on systems compatibility. None of those companies are currently involved in the legal battle, although they are members of two broad industry coalitions -- ECIS and the Software & Information Industry Association -- that back the Commission.
Microsoft is challenging the EU's original 2004 antitrust order at the EU's Court of First Instance. The 2004 antitrust order found the company broke competition law for abuse of a dominant position and fined the software maker a record euro497 million (US$613 million).
"It is the first time we have been confronted by a company which has failed to comply with an antitrust decision," said Todd. "We are in unknown territory."
"We don't want to be in a situation where ten years after an antitrust decision, they still are not in compliance," said Todd, adding the "vast majority of the information" provided to the software competitors, was "not innovative."
To remedy Microsoft's antitrust abuse, the EU ordered the company to sell a copy of Windows without its media player software and told it to share communications code and information with rivals to help them develop server software that worked smoothly with Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows desktop operating system.
EU regulators fined Microsoft another 280.5 million euros ($371 million) last July for failing to supply the "complete and accurate" interoperability required.
I honestly don't know what the EU is trying to do here. This just sounds kinda stupid.
I do. They're trying to break the Exchange effective monopoly.
If they can get Exchange unlocked, then the Euro open source people can come up with a competitor - and that is the exact thing that Microsoft does *not* want, as it is one of only two things keeping MS alive in the server space.
I don't think that is the case. There is already an alternative Exchange project in existence. If that's all they wanted, they would just throw their resources into that.
In other words the Socialists at the EU don't want to do any of the R&D Microsoft is doing so they are trying to hit them up for free software upgrades.
I thank God that I am not a globalist. If it were up to me I'd do as my ancestors did and tell Europe to kiss my arse.
But then that's just me.
Perhaps. Then MS would just drive the EU into Linux or Mac (most probably Linux). Once they made that platform work well, others would see them as a very viable alternative, and MS would really lose marketshare.
Are you referring to Exchange, itself? Nothing's stopping anyone from developing a competitor to Exchange over a standard network protocal.
We're already using Open XChange at one of my clients. It's not as good as Exchange, and it does *not* integrate with Outlook like Exchange does, because MS won't give anyone the hooks for it.
Right now, there is no 100% compatible replacement for Exchange.
Yes, I'm referring to Exchange itself, not the client software. I hate to say it, but there really no good 100% Exchange replacements out there - and I've been looking.
So? Isn't that what all y'all want? More choices?
Here's the point. The Marxists in Europe don't want to spend their own money. They want to make Microsoft pay for their research. Typical liberals. Free loaders! every one of them. If you think the Europeans can provide a reliable alternative to Microsoft via either Linux or Mac or any other OS for that matter then I say let them pay for it.
Personally... I don't think they can do it. After all, they are not the Japanese. ;)
Pathetic little socialist/marxist.When one cant compete its time to ban,outlaw,fine,or change the rules.
Ya....I've noticed that too. And you know what's funny about that: it wouldn't be that hard to write an Exchange competitor. Exchange is a relatively simple database program.
You'd only need 6 months and 3 or so good programmers, to pull it off.
You're absolutely right. The big problem is making the competitor compatible enough with Exchange so that people can move over their current e-mail and contacts. The problem for OSS is that Exchange is classic business software: boring. What motivates many an OSS developer is that they find the project itself stimulating, completely apart from its usefulness to others. Exchange doesn't really fit that bill for the vast majority.
You know, you'd think so. Apparently it's harder than it looks from the outside - since whatever you code has to be compatible with Outlook on desktops and Outlook Mobile on PocketPC devices.
Until there is a 100% compatible Exchange server for *nix, it will be a stumbling block for OSS/*NIX.
I agree, if the request were merely for a robust and well published API I think it would be reasonable but internal details of software MS has developed should be theirs to do with as they please.
It has a practical monopoly. Notes is a niche player - it is slow, difficult to admin, and very expensive.
If you're doing any sort of calendaring or project management and aren't a Fortune 1000 company, Outlook/Exchange is (unfortunately) the way to go - especially since so many have so much invested in it.
If all you're doing is email, then you have literally thousands of alternatives.
After several recent business trips to the EU, I have no such doubts.
Open source isn't even in the equation. EU wants "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms". If EU wanted to give OSS a shot in the arm, the requirement would be "free".
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.