Microsoft's top lawyer: Relations with Europe improving
Microsoft's top lawyer said that a tentative agreement with Brussels announced earlier Wednesday could potentially allow the software maker to move out of the regulatory crosshairs, perhaps paving the way for regulators to shift their attention elsewhere.
"It's important for us to get closure in Europe on issues that have obviously been controversial for over a decade," General Counsel Brad Smith said in an interview. "Today's decision takes us an important step closer to doing that."
Smith
(Credit: Microsoft)Microsoft initially took a much different approach to the European Commission's assertion that the inclusion of a browser in Windows violated antitrust law. The company had initially proposed just stripping out the browser from Windows 7 entirely, leaving users the prospect of trying to get a browser on their own. The software maker eventually backed down after indications that that approach was unlikely to fly.
While not final, Microsoft's moves would appear to resolve all of its outstanding regulatory issues with the Commission and were greeted warmly by regulators on Wednesday.
Although most of the early attention focused on the agreement around a browser "ballot screen," Microsoft also announced on Wednesday an agreement around product interoperability. Under that deal, a 10-year commitment by Microsoft, the software maker agrees to publish communication protocols and adopt certain standards as part of Windows, Windows Server, Office and other high market share products. Companies could also purchase for 5,000 euros a warranty that would subject Microsoft to court oversight and monetary penalties if it doesn't live up to its commitments.
Smith said that the approach Microsoft took with regard to interoperability was designed to adopt methods that Nellie Kroes, commissioner for competition, had outlined in a speech last year for how companies with high market share products should behave.
"I actually think this in effect implements the model that the Commission has been advocating," Smith said. Moreover, he said it is a model that other software companies should pay attention to, he said, noting that there are lots of companies that have high market share. He noted that Google has 78 percent of the paid search market and IBM has 100 percent of the mainframe market, while Adobe also has dominant positions in certain areas, such as Photoshop.
"It is important we believe to create a level legal and regulatory playing field," Smith said. "Everyone that has a high market share needs to respect the same set of rules. I think a number of these rules are likely to be applicable to other companies and other products."
Settling now with Brussels also could help Microsoft in its effort to win approval for its search deal with Yahoo, Smith said.
"This certainly isn't going to hurt when it comes to the Yahoo-Microsoft agreement," he said. "It's not necessarily going to make a huge difference. We didn't feel a particular step was needed to help it along."
Microsoft is in the process of trying to ascertain whether the deal needs approval from Brussels or from individual European antitrust authorities. It also needs approval from U.S. regulators, who have asked for more information on the deal.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Protectionism is alive and well in Europe, I guess.
Market Share does not automatically make one a target, you know.
As for Apple? Dunno - what happens, happens.
Lest people think you're ignorant, consider that each company pointed out is currently under scrutiny by the EC for allegedly:
IBM: abusing mainframe monopoly to exclude licenses; suit by T3 Technologies
Google: requiring Google accounts on Android; abusive monopoly in paid search
Adobe: using Photoshop's dominance to justify unfair pricing practices
Attorneys like Brad Smith don't toss around names lightly. He's making a point and it's obviously getting heard.
Little wonder you didn't cite your sources:
* IBM was found innocent in the US, and will thus likely be found not culpable in the EU: http://contract.law360.com/articles/125788 (and note for the record that T3 is also a US company... something else you failed to mention, champ).
* Google? No references to that one, even on Bing - though there were some probes that happened in 2008 and 2007... nothing apparently came of it. Maybe you can back up your assertion with a cite?
* Adobe - ditto - there's lots of talk about it joining Google in advising the EU on the recent browser kerfuffle. You'll want to cite this one too.
The fact that IBM *won* in the *US* is proving my point. But in Europe? The EC will no doubt find some reason to fine IBM some ridiculous amount of dollars. WHICH IS MY POINT. We're talking about EC action, not New York or Florida. If IBM had won in Europe maybe you'd have a point, but you don't, as usual.
No doubt they'll win at US DoJ as well. There is a reason why T3 brought its anti-trust action in Europe. Maybe you can figure out why? ;-)
* Google:
Quote from eWeek: "Google is setting itself up for a big fall by gunning for Microsoft [at the European Commission]. The search giant is engaging in competition by litigation with a governmental organization that has no legal or public mandate to reciprocate anything. In fact, Google is likely to be investigated by the European Commission some time in the near future. Google's search share, which is higher in many European countries than in the United States, is reason enough for the EC to open an antitrust investigation. It's not a matter of if but when."
Go search for it, champ. ;-)
* Adobe: it takes 2 seconds to search for objections over Adobe's pricing in Europe. CS4 is priced double in the UK than in the US. Adobe says it's justified but the merits wont matter: as with Google, an EC investigation into Adobe is not a matter of if but when.
To hear a high-level MS attorney use the old chestnut "we're not the only ones in the world with a dominant market share" displays either blatant ignorance (impossible) or outright obfuscation (yep). MS isn't in trouble for being a monopoly - they're in trouble for *illegally using that monopoly* to bulldoze their way into other markets. Even Joe On The Street knows that. Microsoft's Chief Counsel obviously knows this as well.
The MS spin machine grows tiresome.
OSX only comes with Safari installed. They should have a browser choice screen to choose others.
Linux comes with Konquerer always, and Firefox sometimes. Force them to have them too :)
All's fair isn't it?
F the EU
It makes sound financial sense to only go after those with money.
That's true for Linux, but not Apple. While Apple doesn't have as much money as Microsoft, they still have more money than any normal person could imagine. Partially due to their success with iPods, but more so to do with their level of price gouging once only seen by the oil companies.
That's exactly what MS implies : "it is a model that other software companies should pay attention to" but it 's all about : " [there are lots of] companies that have high market share"
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/01/2009-linux-and-the-desktop
Approximative Market Share for Desktops:
Windows: ~91%
Linux: ~4%
OsX: ~6%
If you need to regulate a certain market, which one of these offenders would you go for first?
1. Start streaming major sporting events & music concerts, with HTML5 video.
IE users would either have to install the Chrome Frame plug-in OR use Firefox, Chrome or Safari, to view the events.
2. Start promoting the use of Flash blocking plug-ins (a cool one called "ClickToFlash" was just released for Safari).
This would motivate web developers to start using HTML5 video, HTML5 canvas, SVG, etc. instead of Flash/Silverlight, which are proprietary & are heavy on the CPU & battery. Websites, using these technologies, could encourage people to install the Chrome Frame plug-in OR use Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera, to properly view the pages.
It's unfortunate that Microsoft is so far behind with browser technology, but why should the rest of the internet have to wait for them?
Companies are there to serve customers, not dictate terms. Or if they are going to dictate terms, then they are willing to take the loss in business.
Plain and simple. No company in its right mind would cut that many people out of their market.
Or those that continue to serve Flash, Windows Media, ect. will be the ones making the money, while those following your plan will be in the unemployment line.
HTML5 streaming is LESS expensive & doesn't require Flash or Silverlight development or plug-ins.
Check out this short HTML5 video, with Chrome 3 or Safari 4:
http://demo.sproutcore.com/video/
Now, try to watch it with IE 8. Unfortunately, you can't!
Now install the Chrome Frame plug-in for IE8 & try to watch it. You can!*
*You may need to prefix the URL with "cf:".
Who's losing the jobs?
Web developers would be building ads with HTML5 Canvas & SVG & streaming videos with HTML5 video, instead of using Flash (or Silverlight, if it ever catches on).
Open standards...seamless integration in web pages...less CPU & battery usage...no proprietary technology/plug-ins.
What's not to like?
I didn't say there was anything not to like, I'm just stating the fact you make something that doesn't play well with ~66% of what users have (here in the real world) you are not going to survive.
They won't change quickly, and therefor you won't stay in business.
And most users (and to a degree, many of us tech folks) don't give a damn about proprietary technology/plug-ins.
We care about what works best and easiest.
You see open source as a religion; the vast majority are agnostic on that.
There is a problem brewing with this push, Mozilla and Webkit aren't pushing the "exact" same standards. There are already several items where they are different, requiring double coding, aka the old IE fix, in order to get these new technologies to work on each browser. Next, after ratification, comes the same difficult question MS had, one of their implementations will not be standardized, and they will have to decide whether to abandon what people have already designed to be standards compliant, or find a middle ground that doesn't break to many existing applications but still allows the new "standard" to display correctly. Should be interesting, I'm kind of glad I'm no longer programming daily and get to watch this one from the side lines.
Microsoft was started by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. In 1980 Microsoft began a partnership with IBM. Apple computers seemed increasingly popular at the time. (Note: Apple's Steve Jobs at the time apparently saw IBM as a potential enemy) IBM wanting in the personal computer market Apple helped revolutionize and feeling threatened by Apple wanted to produce and sell IBM machines in direct competition with Apple that would they hoped put Apple out of business.
However, IBM needed an operating system for their computers. That's where Microsoft came in with MS-DOS. They agreed to license MS-DOS which stood for Microsoft Disk Operating System to IBM on the condition they be allowed to provide their software to other companies as well (there is a scene in the film Pirates of the Sillicon Valley where Bill Gates is discussing licensing MS-DOS to IBM and Steve Balmer pauses the scene and starts to narrate that this moment was what helped Microsoft become the dominant company in computer operating systems it is today and make Bill Gates rich) and later they did the same with Windows also. In fact, in 1981 IBM awarded a license to Microsoft to provide a CP/M operating system which was set to be used in the IBM Personal Computer.
For this deal Microsoft bought a CP/M clone called 86-DOS which IBM re-named PC-DOS.
Microsoft's partnership with IBM (to provide MS-DOS and later Windows software to IBM) allowed IBM to bundle Microsoft software with the personal computers they sold while paying Microsoft a royalty for every sale. Apparently in 1985 IBM requested Microsoft to write a new operating system to replace MS-DOS for their computers called OS 2. Microsoft apparently wrote the operating system but would also provide their own alternative operating system software which turned out to be in direct competition with IBM's OS 2.
Microsoft Windows after its creation would subsequently flood the market with different versions all of which would gain significant market share forcing OS 2 ultimately out of the market. However, that comes later. Microsoft licenses the Mac's APIs from Apple by blackmailing them to do so or they'd withhold Office for Mac (even this is yet to come though) and ultimately use them to create Windows but then face a copyright lawsuit by Apple alleging Microsoft stole Apple's code for Windows. All of this happens later.
There was a time when Microsoft and IBM in fact were supposed to rule the world together and Microsoft blessed OS 2 but when Microsoft marketed Windows in direct competiion with OS 2 and that gained more market share as noted OS 2 eventually lost relevance and was discontinued.
Soon after Apple introduced its Lisa computer, Bill Gates feeling that Apple's technology was far outpacing their own wanted to find out how Apple's products work and steal the technology eventually for himself (you may recall a scene from Pirates of the Sillicon Valley in which after Bill Gates sees the Apple Lisa says Apple is killing us and tells Steve Balmer he wants the technology in Apple's Lisa with Balmer replying that we can't just take it after all it belongs to Apple and Bill replies I want it) Apple and Microsoft end up forming a partnership and Microsoft finding out Apple needs a visual basic program agrees to write one for the Mac. They have clearly jumped ship from IBM at this point choosing to work with Apple instead of IBM but is secretly plotting to steal Apple technology.
By 1986 Microsoft Works for Mac is released and Microsoft soon after comes out with Office for Mac that becomes such a major product on the Mac that Microsoft uses it to blackmail Apple to license certain aspects of the Mac's GUI for Microsoft to use. Microsoft gets its way and uses the APIs in their Windows operating system. Apple which had copyrighted its GUI files suit with Microsoft for stealing from them to create Windows -- the lawsuit doesn't go out so well apparently although the court finds some aspects of Windows infringing their only a few minor areas and Microsoft tweaks those parts out of Windows -- but gets to keep Windows otherwise mostly intact.
Later they would try to use Office for Mac again to blackmail Apple to give up QuickTime for Windows when Microsoft was obssessed with owning media playback in Windows -- had no interest themselves in content authoring in which QuickTime was in -- but Microsoft threatened Apple to give up media playback or Microsoft would enter the content authoring market and Microsoft fulfilled on that promise when Apple became the first company to stand Microsoft down. While Netscape, RealNetworks, Sun and other companies fell victim to Microsoft's ruthlessness as MS attempted to use its Windows monopoly to crush the browser threat from Netscape, Sun's Java, RealNetworks streaming player from running in Windows Apple stared Microsoft down and ultimately won.
Sure Microsoft entered content authoring ful-filling their threat and attempted to stop third party developers from using QuickTime in their products and could have almost succeeded but Apple's buying Final Cut and decision to save their business by creating their own apps in response was enough to save Apple. Roughly Drafted while sometimes biased to Apple provides good and accurate information in their articles on Microsoft's Plot To Kill QuickTime and How Microsoft Drove QuickTime's Final Cut, as well as their Windows XP Media Center vs Apple TV stating Microsoft learned no lessons from their failure rebranding WebTV as MSN TV in the creation of Windows MCE, and the problems with their XBox unit. I'm sure some articles might present too much of a bias toward Apple but these articles point out Microsoft's failures point blank with facts and how Apple has succeeded.
- by maneeshpan October 7, 2009 5:28 PM PDT
- Sorry for the triple post just wanted to make sure I don't sound too pro Apple or anything by the way I explained how Microsoft stole from Apple, attempted to blackmail Apple twice to license the Mac's APIs to them and to give up on QuickTime for Windows media playback, detailed Microsoft's flawed strategies from rebranding WebTV as the doomed MSN TV, then recycling it as Windows MCE without learning from the MSN TV failure and creating XBox but not saying anything critical about Apple. Some of their business practices as a consumer do concern me -- buying iTunes Store content protected by DRM means you can't use it with competing devices -- if you buy movies or TV from iTunes you can't get it to play with VUDU or anything else than Apple TV, video iPods or a Mac or Windows PC (or even a Mac running Windows) with iTunes and the machine authorized to play DRM protected content.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)