Coffeehouse Thread

15 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

EU vs. Microsoft a personal fight?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Maybe someone from the EU can explain how things got/are getting to this point.

    Microsoft is being fined by the EU for WMP being bundled with WindowsXP to the extent they reissued XP with a N edition. And now it seems like they are fishing for another reason with Symantec. According to C|Net

    "Symantec, based in Cupertino, Calif., has responded to questions from EU competition authorities about its role in the security industry but has no intent to file a complaint about Microsoft"

    Is the EU running around to every vendor/manufacture and asking them if they would like to file lawsuits? Now I have to hand it to Symantec for their response...

    ""We're not involved with anything with the EU," Thompson said. "We don't need competition in the courtrooms." Instead, Thompson said Symantec will compete with its products, which he said are superior those Microsoft has yet to launch."

    Even if he is wrong or right...he at least isn't freaking out right now...which honestly he probably could win...Symantec and McAfee probably could go stright to the DOJ or the EU and try to get some type of restraint...I dunno IANAL.

    "Furthermore, Thompson noted that Symantec is a key Microsoft partner; the companies share millions of customers. "We make the Windows experience secure, and therefore, there is a mutual dependency between us and Microsoft," he said. "While they may have an interest in the security market, they also have an interest in us being successful.""

    But what is wrong with the EU these days...

    1. Want to trademark OpenSource projects
    2. Want to rip apart Microsofts OS
    3. Want to get everyone to sue MS

    I mean when will it stop? Personally I am just getting tired of a land mass that can't agree on anything trying to take it out on one of the largest U.S. companies...but that is just my opinion.

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Dont shoot the landmass, shoot the beurocrats.

     

     

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Microsoft has a legitimate right to produce anti-virus and or other security products both in the EU and elsewhere. What they CAN'T do is use their unique knowledge of Windows, or bundle with Windows in order to gain a competitive advantage.

    The EU hasn't done anything against Microsoft at this point in relation to its security products; they just received a complaint. Plus they were right to give Microsoft a slap over media player, adding it to Windows *did* give Microsoft a competitive advantage over other media players at the time (And today).

    Just because the US government is asleep at the wheel doesn't mean the EU should be; I know a lot of Americans think that it is big bad Europe attacking a good ol' American company but truth be told Microsoft is no more an American company than any other nationality.. They do after all produce and sell their products internationally.

  • User profile image
    matt0210

    This might be the most stupid question ever asked here, but why does MS have the right to charge for security-related security fixes????
    MS is now employing I-don't-know-how-many engineers to write new software that protects their own software from the side effects in their own software. They should fix the software before they release it! That's what our engineers do. Are they idiots for doing that?
    I'm just glad people are starting to wake up a bit, even here in good 'ol Germany

  • User profile image
    Manip

    matt0210 wrote:
    This might be the most stupid question ever asked here, but why does MS have the right to charge for security-related security fixes????


    Because they have no legal responsibility to make sure their software is secure. Some companies charge per patch even so Microsoft isn't the only or the worse offender. It is also worth noting that Microsoft clearly sets out their product life cycle on Microsoft.com that you can view before buying.  

    matt0210 wrote:
    MS is now employing I-don't-know-how-many engineers to write new software that protects their own software from the side effects in their own software.


    You could say the same about a weapon manufacturer that produces guns for everyone and guns for police use only or for both sides of a war....
     
    Programmers are getting paid (by spammers and fraudsters) to use the Windows platform in ways that it wasn't intended; but is designed to be a "open platform" for good or bad. Despite what you might hear, the exact same could occur on a Linux and or Mac OS X system. 

    The fundamental problem is - "How do you determine what is bad and good software?"; the operating system can't do that. But humans can, so if you pick out the bad software and write a guard tool to look out for that on user's computers (anti-virus/spyware) then you can limit its effectives.

    Plus not all spyware is installed by exploits, some are installed by shareware, downloads and e-mail attachments. 

     
    matt0210 wrote:
    They should fix the software before they release it! That's what our engineers do. Are they idiots for doing that?


    Let me guess, you're not a programmer?  Please could you write me a 40,000 page manual with no spelling, grammar or factorial errors in it... If you COULD do that then that alone would be a feat but still wouldn't even equate to the challenge of releasing bug-free software... Imagine that same 40,000 page book, but if each page was attached to a rubix cube, and by changing one page the cube would rotate and mess up lots of others... That is something nearer what programmers have to deal with.

     

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    The EU needs money, and what's an easier way than trying to find a reason to sue Microsoft? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. That whole media player drama they pulled last year was a similar type of comedy. The N editions aren't being sold anywhere, and if people have those, they're apparently getting WMP anyway. It's very unlike that Europe didn't know that it wouldn't sell, but it's very likely that Europe tried to milk Microsoft. 600m easy bucks.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Tom Servo wrote:
    The EU needs money, and what's an easier way than trying to find a reason to sue Microsoft?


    wow... Easily the stupidest comment ever posted on Channel 9.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Thanks! Where can I get my medal?

    As if it's a surprise that the EU's lacking funds, especially with the extension to the east.

  • User profile image
    BenZila

    Let me guess, American?

    600m is nothing compared to the EU budget.

    The funny thing is, is that the 600m went on software and hardware for the EU + developing countries, and you can guess what OS those PC's were running Big Smile



  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Tom Servo wrote:
    The N editions aren't being sold anywhere,


    Actually, I was looking at laptops the other week, and while configuring a dell insipron (I think), I found I could swap to the N edition, and save myself £0.01 on my purchase price!

    EDIT: my bad, it was a latitude. Linkage.

  • User profile image
    Martin Skala

    I think, EU wants to protect its own IT maket and Microsoft competitors in EU. But who is Microsoft competitor in EU? Mandriva Linux? It's only alternative. In case of WMP, I think it was very bad procedure of EU. The better solution would be if customes (all around the world) would decide which application want to install on their own machine and which not. You don't need WMP to secure run Windows and what if you don't use MSPaint? Is it necessary to have installed all of them? Sometimes EU has very strange methods. I'm from the Czech Rep. (EU)

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Tensor wrote:
    Tom Servo wrote: The N editions aren't being sold anywhere,


    Actually, I was looking at laptops the other week, and while configuring a dell insipron (I think), I found I could swap to the N edition, and save myself £0.01 on my purchase price!

    EDIT: my bad, it was a latitude. Linkage.


    You're a little confused -- It says "Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 (NTFS)(No Media) [subtract £0.01]" which means you don't get a CD, it has nothing to do with the N editions.

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Ah right.

    That would be the head cold.

  • User profile image
    BryanF

    The way I see it, the EU is acting like a parent intervening when their children fight over, say, a jar of cookies. Billy tried to unfairly take the lion's share and so Bobby complained to their mother. After hearing this, she declared, "Dammit, Billy! I'm giving you a spanking and withholding your allowance for two weeks!" What has happened though in the iterim is that Billy, upon realizing what he had gotten himself into, decided to quit acting like such a brat a work out a situation both he and Bobby were happy with. You could argue that Bobby sold out, but it still stands that Bobby himself claims, without coercion, that he is content; keep in mind that Bobby clearly had the upper hand before Billy decided to work things out.

    So here's the question on my mind: Is it right for the EU to go ahead with punishing Microsoft even if Microsoft has reached amicable agreements with all the parties that filed the claims? If I were to be sued by someone in civil court and we reached a settlement, would it be reasonable for the judge to add additional penalties against me? Certainly not. But part of the difficulty lies in the fact that antitrust law is in a hazy middle ground between civil and criminal law--I'm not sure where you'd properly categorize it. I do appreciate that the EU has an obligation to manage their economy, but I'm reminded of what David Anderson said in his C9 interview: the two worst things a manager can do is intervene when it is unnecessary and not intervene when it is. My suspicion is that the EU is persuing this case more for the sake of pride and the personal career building of various bureaucrats than for the sake of good sense.

    Microsoft has come a long ways since the original antitrust trial; I beleive they've realized that they need to learn to play nice or they'll be kicked out of the playground. As always, there's plenty of room for improvement, but I really don't think the EU is facilitating this in any meaningful way. Market leverage through things like StarOffice, competent competitors, and customer demand seem to far more effective.

  • User profile image
    Manni

    This is basically the same thing the EU did to another Seattle company, Boeing.

    Back then, Airbus was in the formative stages, and Boeing was in the process of purchasing McDonnell Douglas, shutting down the DC-8/DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 lines, and signing airlines to Boeing-only fleets.

    What did the EU do? Step in, and argue that iBoeing's actions were somehow uncompetitive.

    This, from the same governments that had all their 'aerospace' companies sucking at their respective national teets while nurturing Airbus Industrie (now Airbus SAS)!

    Boeing folded like a limp noodle, Airbus grew stronger, and the rest is history.

    I'm glad Microsoft IS fighting this. I know the Eurograts would definitely like to replace Microsoft with a 'local hero', but Linux ain't him.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.