Coffeehouse Thread

18 posts

Forum Read Only

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

MS caves in ... withdraws EU appeal

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Ray6

    Ouch.

    As well as the fine, MS has agreed to license interoperability tech at a fixed price of 10,000 Euros, instead of ongoing royalties.  Any license payments will be charged at 0.4% of revenues from the technology, as opposed to the 5.95% that Microsoft had asked for.

    And as if that wasn't bad enough, not only will they have to pay the half billion euros from the original appeal, there is still the ongoing daily fines to assess, which could take the final figure to over a billion Euros.

    And of course, there is are now the complaints of MS's competitors, which are likely to be given more credibility in light of this defeat.

  • User profile image
    Minh



    "You either get busy living, or get busy dying."

  • User profile image
    Sabot

    I think this was the only real way out for MS.

    It's not a great deal but it could be worse!

    Why other IT companies are not laughing is because this a ruling that effects all the industry and no doubt many will have to change their ways and quickly before the EU spotlight falls on them.

    One things for sure, it's going to get tougher to trade in the EU but as the market is larger than the USA and growing it's worth it!

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    Sabot wrote:
    I think this was the only real way out for MS.


    Indeed. Since the EU is the accuser, the judge, jury and the bank, then I'm not sure how MS ever expected to win.

    Sabot wrote:
    
    It's not a great deal but it could be worse!


    Well that's just it. Last time they appealed, the fine doubled! Another appeal and they'd be looking at just under a billion. Best to cut their losses now.


    Sabot wrote:
    
    Why other IT companies are not laughing is because this a ruling that effects all the industry and no doubt many will have to change their ways and quickly before the EU spotlight falls on them.


    If I were Apple, I'd start worrying ....

  • User profile image
    Bas

    While I didn't agree with the EU's case, I have to say that I'll be glad to see this behind us all so that we can get rid of the 'ZOMG ANTITRU$T' arguments.

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    Sabot wrote:
    I think this was the only real way out for MS.


    Indeed. Since the EU is the accuser, the judge, jury and the bank, then I'm not sure how MS ever expected to win.


    If the EU was acting against its own laws, then MS would have won. You're acting as if this is some sort of show trial or train robbery.

  • User profile image
    Sabot

    It's not a show trial ... but Microsoft's detractors will obviously try and turn it into one. However, that is human nature.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    I *think* that the original fine has already been paid at the time of the first sentence... Microsoft was appealing to get that money back Smiley

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    PaoloM wrote:
    I *think* that the original fine has already been paid at the time of the first sentence... Microsoft was appealing to get that money back


    Yes, it said it was held in escrow ... the EU has it now.

    That's gonna pay for a lot of fact-finding trips to the Bahamas ....




  • User profile image
    Ray6

    Bas wrote:
    While I didn't agree with the EU's case, I have to say that I'll be glad to see this behind us all so that we can get rid of the 'ZOMG ANTITRU$T' arguments.

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    Sabot wrote:
    I think this was the only real way out for MS.


    Indeed. Since the EU is the accuser, the judge, jury and the bank, then I'm not sure how MS ever expected to win.


    If the EU was acting against its own laws, then MS would have won. You're acting as if this is some sort of show trial or train robbery.


    I like to think of it more as pick-pocketing on an unimaginable scale rather than a train robbery.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    Hmm... I dont necessarly like how Microsoft was fined but the news that they will license their protocols for a one time fee of ~$14,000 is great for open source companies wanting to improve Linux interopability with Windows, without reverting to GPLv3-violating patent agreements.

    The Samba team could definitely benefit from this as they've been trying to reverse engineer Microsoft's CMB/CIFS protocol for years, along with better integrate into Active Directory environments.

  • User profile image
    jason818_25​3.33

    There is always a bigger fish. The big fish like to stay big fish. MS is not always the Goliath people think it is.

  • User profile image
    Escamillo

    Bas wrote:
    While I didn't agree with the EU's case, I have to say that I'll be glad to see this behind us all so that we can get rid of the 'ZOMG ANTITRU$T' arguments.

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    Sabot wrote:
    I think this was the only real way out for MS.


    Indeed. Since the EU is the accuser, the judge, jury and the bank, then I'm not sure how MS ever expected to win.


    If the EU was acting against its own laws, then MS would have won. You're acting as if this is some sort of show trial or train robbery.


    The problem is that there was no proper "trial" regarding the underlying case.  The EC made its decision, but it's not like there was any due process (no ability to cross examine evidence or even face your accuser (indeed, the EC made use of "secret" evidence that was never disclosed)).  The only time a court ever got involved was the appeal, and hearings before an appeals court bear little resemblance to an intial trial (still no chance to cross examine evidence, etc).  The appeals court merely ruled that EU law gives the EC the right to dictate policy at whim.  It's like no matter what the EC does, it's not against EU law, because EU law says that the EC has absolute authority in these matters.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Escamillo wrote:
    

    The problem is that there was no proper "trial" regarding the underlying case.  The EC made its decision, but it's not like there was any due process (no ability to cross examine evidence or even face your accuser (indeed, the EC made use of "secret" evidence that was never disclosed)).  The only time a court ever got involved was the appeal, and hearings before an appeals court bear little resemblance to an intial trial (still no chance to cross examine evidence, etc).  The appeals court merely ruled that EU law gives the EC the right to dictate policy at whim.  It's like no matter what the EC does, it's not against EU law, because EU law says that the EC has absolute authority in these matters.


    Secret evidence? Err link? Proof?

    Nor of course is this whole proper trail thing actually true; the 5 year probe and ruling took place in court, and Microsoft offered defence and evidence during the 5 years it took to complete. In fact Microsoft asked for and received oral hearings during the process in front of the commission.

    Your attempts to point at the lack of court proceedings up to the appeal are disingenuous, as at that point it's a commission investigation and a court is simply not involved; perhaps you could do some reading on the Court of First Instance and what it actually does.

    Nor indeed did the court rule as you say; it upheld the decision by coming to the same conclusion that without interoperability being more freely available MS was abusing a desktop monopoly.

    So, errr, which right wing propoganda site did you get your information from?

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    PaoloM wrote:
    I *think* that the original fine has already been paid at the time of the first sentence... Microsoft was appealing to get that money back


    Yes, it said it was held in escrow ... the EU has it now.

    That's gonna pay for a lot of fact-finding trips to the Bahamas ....






    I've said it before I'll say it again. The amount that MS has been fined is as nothing in the grand scheme of the EU's annual budget. The notion that the whole thing was some revenue grabbing exercise is ridiculous. I think its only supported by people in the US who think that Europe is roughly the size of Belgium.

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    The title should read, Microsoft defeated

    Microsoft was defeated the "Great white shark" of software is toothless and has been tamed.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    corona_coder wrote:
    The title should read, Microsoft defeated

    Microsoft was defeated the "Great white shark" of software is toothless and has been tamed.


    Europe the fount of innovation and economic growth--whatever! Wink

    Cool

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Which is why the two of you are a barrel of laughs.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    blowdart wrote:
    
    Escamillo wrote:
    

    The problem is that there was no proper "trial" regarding the underlying case.  The EC made its decision, but it's not like there was any due process (no ability to cross examine evidence or even face your accuser (indeed, the EC made use of "secret" evidence that was never disclosed)).  The only time a court ever got involved was the appeal, and hearings before an appeals court bear little resemblance to an intial trial (still no chance to cross examine evidence, etc).  The appeals court merely ruled that EU law gives the EC the right to dictate policy at whim.  It's like no matter what the EC does, it's not against EU law, because EU law says that the EC has absolute authority in these matters.


    Secret evidence? Err link? Proof?

    Well, if he shows you the evidence, it won't actually be a secret, now, will it?
    blowdart wrote:

    Nor of course is this whole proper trail thing actually true; the 5 year probe and ruling took place in court, and Microsoft offered defence and evidence during the 5 years it took to complete. In fact Microsoft asked for and received oral hearings during the process in front of the commission.

    Your attempts to point at the lack of court proceedings up to the appeal are disingenuous, as at that point it's a commission investigation and a court is simply not involved; perhaps you could do some reading on the Court of First Instance and what it actually does.

    Nor indeed did the court rule as you say; it upheld the decision by coming to the same conclusion that without interoperability being more freely available MS was abusing a desktop monopoly.

    So, errr, which right wing propoganda site did you get your information from?

    So, here's the rub:  If there are freely available alternatives to MS software, and those alternative protocols are open to the public, then how can the commission even come to that conclusion?

    This was nothing more than a PR stunt instigated by the shoeless patchoulli crowd.  Plus, it allowed the EU its first opportunity to flex its collective muscles in an international dispute. 

    Sadly, the end result doesn't provide any advantage to the consumer and I'm guessing the sale of protocol licenses will be as brisk as the media-player-less version of windows from a few years back.

Conversation locked

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