Comments on: Vista's European battleground

As the slippery due date draws near for the Windows release, Microsoft and the EU are now at odds over security features.

[extinctone]

My thanks to the EU.

It seems the anti-trust busters on the other side of the pond know how to keep MS under control. Rulings come with teeth, as opposed to being hit with a pay-off and allowed to continue with business as usual like here in the states.

[djcaseley]

Indeed

I agree with all of the above. As a paying member of the will-be-superstate, I'm glad they're paying so much attention to technology, and software in particular.

I would like to see, however, the entire investigation published as it happens by the EU Trade Commission or Press Office or whoever is responsible, minus of course, any disclosure by MS to the EU involving trade secrets, yada yada.

We seem to hear a lot of what goes on between Europe and MS second or third hand. If the EU & Microsoft were both keeping tally on their own sites, I'd feel much happier that this is indeed an example of securing the rights of competition, and not an example of EU saying "Its Microsoft. It must be bad!".

Just a little more information from the parties involved. Its all I ask.

[myszak]

MicrosoftState (tm)

Interesting observation: Microsoft attempts to negotiate with EU as if it was a soverein state and a fit partner for such negotiations, cute - if it worked, but apparently - it did not; thanks - EU!

EU - by refusing to negotiate - put MS in it's place: Microsoft is just a vendor, big and arogant one, but nothing more than a vendor; EU has no business negotiating with Microsoft and/or supplying legal services to it - by providing binding interpretations of it's own legislation; just read the apropriate legislation Mr. Balmer and comply - like everybody else...

[Too Old For IT]

If I was in charge of MS ...

Europe would still be on Windows 95 (with no support) and every copy of Win 98 forward would be bootleg (with no support).

[wbenton]

Correction Request

>>>Microsoft and the European Union are already caught up in a tussle over the antitrust impact<<<

Request that you change:

>>>are already<<<

TO

>>>have always been<<<

Walt

[davidvh2]

EU (or is it UE?)

It's not surprising that the EU have given their comment thus; they still haven't organized things amonst themselves such as ID cards, Licences for driving, inspections of cars & many other things that affect normal day to day life. Seems they just sit at very considerable cost & pontificate amongst themselves. Microsoft, can wait in line & if it delays Vista as a result, so what? We can manage perfectly well without it.

[arluthier]

EU European Union or Estats Unis

Just curious... has the French changed our (the United States') acronym given the European Union acronym... or do they use UE (l'Union Europeenne)?

Ah how confusing that must be to not have a standard means of communicating... maybe they need to publish their protocols for the rest of us non EU/UE-eans. Just teasing.

[wbenton]

To Microsoft:

The EU isn't going to hand you their market on a silver platter like the US does.

They've said time and again that you MUST NOT crouch on their business and that you MUST provide a FAIR method for EU software vendors to be able to compete by linking to the same API's you use for your products which you attach to your Operating System.

Otherwise, you're being unfair.

On a same note, you're also performing those same unfair practices within the US, but only a relatively small few actually complain today because you've smutted their voices in the past for speaking out against them.

The EU won't put up with your unfair practices. Thus you must meet their fairness standards if you want any part of their market at all.

I wish the EU all the best and hope that you will change your unfair practices around the globe... and not only to meet the EU's needs. But for strange reasons, I highly doubt that you will really do what they want. You'll probably compromise half-way and offer them a special deal like you usually do!

Walt

[mickeymjay]

I disagree

I disagree. Over the past year, Microsoft has tried over and over to work with the EU. Now EU is not willing to inform MS what it will not accept in Vista.

Maybe MS should remove bitlocker, Windows Defender, the search features from the N versions of Vista or not release Vista at all in the EU. Granted, I would feel sorry that the EU is going to penalize its public if MS decided not to release Vista over there.

[arluthier]

Capitalism

If you or anyone else in the EU do not feel you are being treated "fairly" by the evil American capitalist machine called Microsoft... don't buy their products. There ARE alternatives... or develop your own systems. EU countries are good at dealing in government funded companies.

I find it silly that people whine to their governments that MS is pushing a browsers on me, pushing a media player on me, makeing PC manufacturers install windows... and on and on. If you dont want to use IE... don't. if you dont want to use Media Player... don't. If you don't want Windows on your computer... go to another manufacturer that isn't under the MS thumb.

Come on people... use some common sense. If you dont like what is playing on the TV or Radio do you sit and ***** about it? or just change the station?!

[Too Old For IT]

Translation:

[i]you MUST NOT crouch on their business[/i]

You must prop up businesses located in our socialist workers paradise, even if the whole model is failing.

[i]you MUST provide a FAIR method for EU software vendors to be able to compete by linking to the same API's you use for your products which you attach to your Operating System[/i]

You must give away trade secrets for free to businesses who cannot otherwise compete in the open market.

[Jerry Dawson]

Consumer feedback

All I might want is the operating system/kernel - a single version that can be configured for the hardware/environment it will run in.

I do not want Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Outlook Express, security software, or anything else my customers do not use and do not wish to pay for bundled with the O/S.

I also want the price capped to well under €50 or reselling is a problem.

[David Arbogast]

Tough for you.

And I want a Lamborghini engine to shoehorn into my vehicle, but there's no reason anybody has to sell me one.

MOST computer users don't even know what you are talking about - thus, the demand you represent ini the marketplace is tiny and insignificant - which translates into tiny and insignificant sales revenues - which means: bad business.

[Captain_Spock]

Who says it is about VISTA when it should be about the CONCORDE...

.... and might soon be about the EU's "clumsy" A380 that would require countries to expand their airport facilities to accomodate this yet another of the EU's waste of tax payer's dollars when the EU's IT jobs are flowing into countries like India and China faster than the "CONCORDE" that the EU was forced to pull from its airline operations because of apparently poorly developed financial, economic and technical management. Who should pay any attention to any group of people from a certain part of the world who appear not to be able to develop competitive OSes (re: LINUX) and an IT industry of their own that they must now seek to influence the way other regional economies operate. Why doesn't the EU simply ask Microsoft to supply a Modular "VISTA" Kernel just for EU users and then develop the rest of the applications for themselves!

[Catgic]

I Want My Maypo?Er-r-r?Microsoft Million$

The EUC regulators have no incentive to set clear boundaries and give clear antitrust guidelines to Microsoft because it is all about them assuring they obtain the next EUC [i]?Pay Day?[/i] from all American businesses competing in Europe, particularly Microsoft.

As far as Nellie Kroes and her band of EUC [i]?Blackbirds?[/i] are concerned, successful Microsoft is by definition a ?near monopolist? by virtue of it being an American Capitalist, its market success and deep pockets. The EUC has acquired a taste for the U$Ds U.S. companies use to pay their EUC imposed [i]?fines,?[/i] and they want regular servings.

In socialist Europe, it is a [i]?Capitalist Pig Sin?[/i] to pursue, win and hold a dominant market position. Only the EUC Bureaucracy is permitted to control, dominant, and define what competition is to the marketplace and the market players. JP B-)

[BigCoffinHunter]

Idiots...

So, basically the commission members are just trying to cover their own ***** by not giving Vista a "green light" ahead of time so that in the future they can levy fines. Basically, they'd prefer Microsoft to release the operating system with absolutely no features and then force the user to have to go online and download all of the available features separately. Me, I'd much rather have all of the features included and free so that I don't have to buy third-party software, which I, and probably about 95% of the rest of us, would never buy anyways, I don't care how much better it is than Microsoft's. We're cheap. We're lazy. We don't want to have to lose both time and money on something we could have for free. Why not just give an option while installing the operating system to choose which features to install?

[Hulser]

Hidden costs of the "kernal only" Windows

>Why not just give an option while installing
>the operating system to choose which features
>to install?
Playing the devil's advocate here for a minute, the answer would be "Because even if you can choose not to install a feature ("product") during the installation of Windows, you're still paying for those features. And I don't want to have to pay for the features I don't use."

What this argument misses, as you allude to, is that the "95% of the rest of us" either do want those features or are at least content with their inclusion in the OS. From a technical perspective, Microsoft could design Windows to be very modular, allowing for more of a "pay per feature" approach to purchase of Windows. But if the vast majority of Windows users are OK with what is included in the OS, why go through all the time and expense to make it modular?

In other words, it's not worth it to completely redesign the foundation of Windows for the sake of the 5% who want a modular Windows. And even if this complete foundation resign were implemented, the huge irony would be that Microsoft would have to increase the price of *all* versions of Windows (include the "kernal only" version) in order to pay for this gargantuan effort.

Microsoft have obviously decided it's less expensive to fight the legal battles and pay the fines rather than incur the costs (both actual and opportunity) of making Windows modular. And as long as Windows doesn't prevent third-party alternatives from working properly, then this is just fine as far as I'm concerned. (If MS is caught trying to sabotage a third-party app, then sue'em. I'm fine with that too.)

[myszak]

Idiots... usually miss the point.

The commision members have a valid point, which is: Microsoft is out of it's place asking this question and does not deserve an answer. When you intend to do something and are not sure whether it's legal in your jurisdiction, you do not ask the legislature to dumb down and explain the law, so you can understand it, legislature has no obligation to do it for you, you simply hire a lawyer to provide a legal opinion, based on existing legislation.

The same mechanism applies to Microsoft: the commission has no reason and no obligation to explain EU laws to Microsoft, but Microsoft has an obligation to comply with the laws, while doing business within EU jurisdiction.

It was a very smart trick on part of Microsoft to demand explanation specific to Vista release, good thing the commission members did not fall for it; Microsoft is not a soverein entity (it only thinks it is...) which could demand specific clarifications, Microsoft is a subject to EU laws, while operating in EU, just like everybody else, no explanations, discussions or clarification required.

If EU responded to Microsoft ridiculous demand - it would create a precedent, from now on every supplier of rubber duckies could ask the commission to re-design his duckies for him, in order to make them compliant with EU law; good try, but no luck, Mr. Balmer - rubber duckies suppliers are expected to design their duckies themselves, while commission has other things to do - like slapping fines on arrogant suppliers of rubber duckies, those who do not bother to obey the law.

[waterspider]

Simple example/story

There is a person, with a history of violating laws and has been convicted in a few cases. He also violates several business ethics and got away with it and was not convicted. He is also very very rich, so he can make deals with whoever sues then if they'll accept money. So over the years, he got into a habit of violating all rules, laws and business ethics to make more and more money - and his lies have become very crafty and his practices very stealthy, treacherous and deceitful. This has just become part of his behavior.

Now, he is making a product and is asking the government (EU in this case) what part of the product violates the laws. Depending on the answer, he'd craft his lie and PR, and may even use this as the next excuse for a Vista delay (even in the US market). He will then ask another question which is crafty, to get another excuse to blame the EU. It has never been the Government's role to provide answers to the question of "Am i doing this in a legal way?" (and a thousand small variations of it, for every person and company). It is always the responsibility of the person to understand illegal conduct and aviod it, or if he practises illegal conduct, to be sued for it and take the consequences.

No government has enough resources to answer every question about "is this legal?" for every situation from everyone who wants to ask the question. That's why they make the laws and regulations, to let the citizens and organizations to know the law and to know when they violate the law.

-srr

[Too Old For IT]

Dealing with the EU Like Dealing With the Mob

Except that the mob tells you up front what they want, and as long as you pay protection, they leave you alone.

The EU, epsecially the cometition gestapo, just want to play gotcha with MIcrosoft until they wxtract what they feel is the required "fines". This is Bill Gates penalty for not setting up over there and contributing his hard work to the parasites in the EU Socialist Workers Paradise.

No wonder Bill has a date set for retirement. I'd have let the EU drift a while ago myself.

[obsidian02]

Don't Care

I don't care what is being said.
All I need is Security, Stability, Security .. etc. and Microsoft should start workin on it's OS before sending out to consumer. Microsoft should spend more money for their number one issue in OS. I want no virus, no spyware ....etc.etc.. Almost all the time, when I got trouble in OS window it'r the ****** virus, spyware, not that I don't already have antivirus or antispyware installed, they just aren't good enough. I don't need features , but I need a simple protection that makes the OS stable.

[FutureGuy]

EU: Make Vista Less Secure

What is EU trying to say where? Don't provide built in security so that the market for "security products" continue to flourish. MS entering this market was probably the best thing that happened to consumers from a security stand point. MS is making the OS itself way more secure (build in firewall etc) but also brought down the prices of antivirus products to reasonable levels. Ideally that market should cease to exist.
EU is plain out of touch and greedy for money.

[iRhapsody]

exactly

I can agree with this no more!

[news_reader]

This is the only person that get's it.

Well done.

[myszak]

MS "Security" - whose computer is it ?

If you want "security" powered by Redmont agenda, enjoy! I don't, so I will stay with Linux....

In practice - Microsoft fixes their DRM issues much faster then real security problems; they invest more in protecting contents of your own computer from you, then in protecting you and your own files - they believe that this is a good business decision and - maybe - it is... Not my problem.

But - it does not match my priorities and on my computers I set the priorities, not Microsoft; EU tries to preserve your right and ability to do the same.

[Björn Lundahl]

The EU hinders companies to compete!

When companies compete in separate markets, different competitive measures are often taken by companies in those markets. People in those markets, because of culture, values goods and services differently and are willing to pay for goods and services in accordance with those values. For instance, in Italy, people are very willing to buy cheap cars made by the Italian car manufacturer ?Fiat?. Volkswagen, decided to sell their cars in Italy to Italians for lower prices. Volkswagen, thought, that these measures were needed in that market to compete effectively. People from Austria and Germany went to Italy in search for bargains ?offered by Volkswagen?. Volkswagen dealers said no. Low prices are only offered to Italian customers! For these ?crimes? The European Union's High Court upheld a $110.5 million fine for Volkswagen. This happened in 1998. Now, Volkswagen and other companies must have same prices in all markets to all people, otherwise they risk to get heavily punished. In other words, if people are willing to cross borders in search for bargains, it is better for a company like Volkswagen, to raise its prices in Italy and lose market share. Apart from Volkswagen, the Italians will suffer. Alternatively, they could have the same low prices in all markets, but that might not be profitable or even lead to bankruptcy. In the very end, competition is hindered! This is only an example of Government in action and what it actually does ?to promote competition?. For more information about this case, go to; http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=09220316204320
And to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782014.htm


Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

[Björn Lundahl]

The Emperor's New Clothes

People are led to believe that trade restrictions between regions or countries ?create jobs at home?, which they certainly do not. If people had the opposite belief that ?free trade? between regions or countries ?creates jobs at home?, that would also be an incorrect belief. Trade restrictions or free trade does not cause unemployment or cause employment in a region or country. Trade restrictions only lower the standard of living, hamper competition and restrict liberty. If for instance, the EU imposes tariffs on Chinese textiles, the Euro will appreciate against the Chinese Yuan (the value of the Euro will increase relatively to the Chinese Yuan). This depreciation (decrease in value) of the Chinese Yuan against the Euro, in this example, is caused by a smaller demand for Chinese textiles and therefore a smaller demand for Europeans to buy the Chinese Yuan. Because of this change in exchange rates, prices of goods from the EU to China will be generally higher and prices of goods from China will be generally lower (apart from textiles). As you can imagine, this will increase employment in the European textile sector, but decrease employment in other sectors. At the whole, unemployment will not change but trade between the regions will be lower. Specialization, competition and living standards in the EU region will be hampered. The tariffs will only serve special interest that is the textile manufacturers and their employees. Surely, we want our representatives to serve the common good and the common man and not special interests!

Someone might complain that the Chinese are intervening in the exchange markets to keep their currency artificially low and that they are not letting market forces to appreciate their currency, and therefore my statement about free trade, in this case, is not applicable. Free trade, someone might think, is presupposed by freely fluctuating currencies with no Government intervention (also called clean floating exchange rates). Certainly I do not want Governments to intervene in exchange markets, but actually it is the Chinese that are in this case the losers and we are the winners. We should be glad that China is suppressing the rise of its currency, and the Chinese people should be mad about it. When market prices indicate that, for example, a project is unprofitable; investors naturally stop investing in such a project. Otherwise, factors of production such as land, capital, and labour would be wasted. Every government manipulation of market prices is a step toward economic breakdown and chaos. Land, capital, and labour that are invested in the exporting business in China because of a suppressed currency, have changed the economic structure in China and are mal investments, unprofitable for the nation to undertake, and we are getting something free. We don't need to export anything to pay for this "extra importation of Chinese products?. To make my statement more obvious, we could consider that if the Chinese currency would be suppressed to no value at all (which would not be possible to realize), the Chinese would be working for nothing (which is, naturally unprofitable for China to undertake) and the market forces in the EU (if market forces would not be hindered by Governments) would reallocate land, capital and labour for other uses and to those fields which the Chinese are not able to compete (even if the Chinese were working and exporting to full capacity, that will not, by far, be enough to satisfy all our wants). The increases in production which mentioned reallocation of recourses leads to are our extra bonus. We should applaud this and the Chinese people should revolt!

Free trade is not, either, presupposed by different currencies.
We do not worry about the balance of payments between London and Manchester, Berlin and Munich, Paris and Bordeaux or Stockholm and Göteborg etc. Market forces will smoothen out any imbalances. If, for example, London exports more to Manchester than Manchester exports to London, the demand for goods and services will be greater in London relatively to their supply, and also relatively to the situation in Manchester. Because of this, prices will go up in London and therefore will exports from London to Manchester contract, as well as, imports from Manchester to London will expand. This happens all the time and we do not even know about it and therefore do not worry about it. Governments do create problems all the time.

Only Governments can be so silly to reject great offers and bargains. Individuals doing the same thing would be considered mad.

The essence with above statements is that Governments hinders competition, lower our standard of living, promote special interests and they make excuses for this with faulty theories and propaganda.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

[grandmasterdibbler]

'raised the specter of a delay'

I thought that specter had been hanging over Vista since it changed it's name from longhorn?

Blatant money grab by the EU

The fact that they wont give a green light to MS ahead of time shows that the EU is simply looking at this as a way of grabbing money from successful companies. MS is appearently TRYING to cooperate with the EU. But the EU would prefer to look at things 'after the fact' so they could come up with any number of so-called violations that they can fine MS for, and thus line their pockets.

This is a blatantly obvious money grab by the EU.

[bayny]

Improving security is up to us...and them

While the actions of a "near monopolist" such as Microsoft are sometimes frightening to other businesses and consumers in the industry, we need not have our focus removed from the real issue at hand. The missions of Microsoft's security division and of other secuirty companies are to provide their customers with the most advanced security software available, not to limit growth. As consumers of this software we must continue to demand that these companies remain true to their missions by continuing to demand the software they promise to provide. Indeed, industry leaders and "near monopolists" do have an opporunity to stifle development. However, our conitnued demand of superior software will prevent them from doing this. http://www.essentialsecurity.com/

[bayny]

Improving security is up to us...and them

While the actions of a "near monopolist" such as Microsoft are sometimes frightening to other businesses and consumers in the industry, we need not have our focus removed from the real issue at hand. The missions of Microsoft's security division and of other secuirty companies are to provide their customers with the most advanced security software available, not to limit growth. As consumers of this software we must continue to demand that these companies remain true to their missions by continuing to demand the software they promise to provide. Indeed, industry leaders and "near monopolists" do have an opporunity to stifle development. However, our conitnued demand of superior software will prevent them from doing this. http://www.essentialsecurity.com/

[Captain_Spock]

Microsoft Should Aim For A December 25th...

... launch date and not consider the possibilities of a delay and not as was stated earlier this month by Microsoft when it "suggested that the European launch of the already oft-delayed Vista could be pushed back as the result of a lack of direction from the Commission"; after all, apart from security needs... the percentage (not concerned about the EU market and its posturings) of the 90% plus market share must certainly be looking forward to other functionalities from VISTA to conduct their business at hand. If the EU wishes, they can "wait" until a Version of the OS that fits their specific needs ships to manufacturers!

[dirk goedseels]

it's all about American companies

first of all: for those interested in the story from the EU: check
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/
microsoft/

So I really don't understand why all these hatred mails wrt to the
EU are popping up:
- in December 1998 an AMERICAN company, called SUN finds
that it cannot compete with MS because it lacks information on
how to interoperate with Windows. Apparently, the AMERICAN
legislation doesn't care about this, and allows AMERICAN
companies to kill each other on the market? Not so in Europe
where the legislation foresees in competition. Because of this
AMERICAN complaint, the commision starts an investigation, and
finds that eg WMP comes bundled with Windows (and is not
available as a separate download) which hurts - again - another
AMERICAN company, called Netscape.
Because MS doesn't want to comply with the EU legislation, they
get a fine (I don't know about AMERICAN laws, but in Europe,
you get punished when breaking a law)

Now comes Vista, and what seems: anti-virus software comes
bundled with the OS, thus making it tough for competition to
sell competing products. In this case, AMERICAN companies like
Symantec and McAfee are likely to issue a same kind of
complaint to the EU commision when Vista gets released in
Europe with bundled SW.

Bottom line: the EU regulation is preventing from AMERICAN
companies to go bankrupt because of the monopoly position of
MS, that is bundling SW in the OS, which should be separated
from it, allowing competition to offer competing products.

So if you like seing Sun, Apple, Netscape, Symantec, McAfee and
other AMERICAN companies go out of business, please keep on
bashing the EU legislation. If OTOH you like competition on the
market, you may get your legislators convinced as well for a
similar law in the US.

[unknown unknown]

RE

condescending and arrogant.

It not competition if companies are forbidden from gaining an advantage on their rivals, it's just mediocrity. Enforcing this misguided notion of competition to the point it prevents basic improvements like protecting the kernal from unauthorized kernal modification isn't a good thing. So what it forces Symmantec and McAfee to design their software a little different, it's a new OS and it's unreasonable to expect the way things are done not to change. Truth be told Symmantec etc shouldn't be rootkiting people systems the way they do now anyway. Norton's security products are becoming notorious for causing problems and instability.


If you both to check the finacial information for Symmantec, McAfee, Sun. Apple, and Netscape (now part of AOL/Timewarner) they're in no danger of going backrupt. Indeed Apple is very profitable company and has had outstanding success with it ventures into the Windows side (like iTunes).


"EU regulation is preventing from AMERICAN companies to go bankrupt because of the monopoly position of MS"

Yeah, I think you give yourselves entirely too much credit. Believe what you want just don't get injured yourselves while patting yourselves on the back.


"If OTOH you like competition on the market, you may get your legislators convinced as well for a similar law in the US."

Oh hell no. EU laws can stay in the EU.

[Björn Lundahl]

Alan Greenspan did not like antitrust laws and their authorities!

Actually, I do not like Ayn Rand, but still, in her book ?Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?, there is an interesting chapter (Antitrust, chapter 4) written by Alan Greenspan (former chairman of the Federal Reserve). I, hereby quote from page 70 a few sentences written by Alan Greenspan ?The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic economic theories?. I, hereby also quote some of the last sentences from this chapter (page 71) ?Whatever damage the antitrust laws may have done to our economy, whatever distortions of the structure of the nation?s capital they may have created, these are less disastrous than the fact that the effective purpose, the hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and efficient members of our society ?because? they are productive and efficient?. Naturally, these statements also can be applied to EU regulators and antitrust laws.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

[myszak]

Alan Greenspan was wrong....

...and right at the same time: "the hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and efficient members of our society ?because? they are productive and efficient? - how true; power to break up a corporation, like evry power - corrupts and was/is/will be abused.

But - "wild west" capitalism led to Great Depression, this is not an interpretation or misinterpretation, it happened - antitrust laws were invented for a reason, then - misapplied very often, with some nasty consequences; still - probably a better outcome than another Great Depression.

[Mergatroid Mania]

A few bad laws...

Just because there are a few bad antitrust laws does not invalidate the intent of antitrust laws in general, which would be something like "not allowing a very few companies to own the world"

Too much of anything can be bad, no matter how good a thing it is. This includes capitalism and its logical outcome, monopolies.

[Björn Lundahl]

Read Alan Greenspans Own Story Against Anti Trust Laws!

Go to;
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden