Boeing may join Microsoft in EU antitrust fight

Boeing is considering joining forces with Microsoft in its fight against European antitrust regulators.

The European Commission, which oversees legislation for the European Union, has ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without a bundled media player and to disclose more technical information to its rivals on a temporary, or interim, basis until the merits of the case are ultimately heard.

Should Boeing file a brief, it would be asking to intervene in the case that will deal with the merits of the Commission's ruling--a trial several years away. The deadline to participate in the "interim measures" hearing on Sept. 30 has already passed, according to a source familiar with the case.

Microsoft is reaching out to other companies that could be affected by the ramifications of the antitrust ruling. Since the Commission's ruling last March, Microsoft said, it has fielded companies' inquiries about the potential effect on their respective industries. Microsoft is also taking the initiative to reach out to other businesses on the issue.

"We are convinced the process will benefit from the broadest possble range of companies from different sectors," Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's lead attorney on the case, said in a statement.

A British antitrust attorney based in Brussels said Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree with this strategy.

"(Microsoft) thinks it's going to get an advantage from this and sway the court. But it's only going to convince the court they are ignorant about its procedures," attorney Frank Fine said, noting that parties intervening in a case have to show the issue is directly relevant to their businesses. "Airbus can't show a connection to Windows' media player and servers. ...Microsoft should know this. It's utter stupidity."

Boeing is reviewing the matter at Microsoft's request, a spokesman for the aircraft maker said.

"(Microsoft) came to us and told us that Airbus is supporting (its) position and (that) it would be great if Boeing could offer its support," said Tim Neale, a Boeing spokesman. "Out task is to look closely at (Microsoft's) case and arguments, and see if it makes sense to do that."

Boeing expects to decide soon, he said. It could file a brief in support of Microsoft's position, or it could follow its French rival, Airbus, and merely seek more information on the court's position. Airbus said its brief, filed with the Court of First Instance in late August, involved a question about one point in the Commission's ruling.

"It's only a request for clarification. We're not taking sides," an Airbus spokeswoman said, though the brief had been technically filed on behalf of Microsoft. "The procedure in the European courts is such that it appears we are taking sides--but we are not."

Airbus is seeking clarification on the Commission's market estimates and approaches, she noted.

Fifteen companies have filed briefs to intervene in the case on behalf of both parties. Independent software developers, media companies, and Web site designers and applications developers have been among those intervening on behalf of Microsoft, a source familiar with the case said.

[Tex Murphy PI]

Economic Socialism

It's amazing how the US government really doesn't do anything, but sit back and allow the EU to dictate the terms of "Fair" trade.

Every merger between two large American companies have (without fail) been shot down by the EU. Yet, their record for approving European Mega-Mergers are almost always approved! Advantage: European companies.

In the latest MS brouhaha (which was already settled in the US DOJ case), MS had to perform corrective actions so that they do not violate anti-trust laws. Apparently, the EU wants to "level" the playing field by forcing an AMERICAN company to disclose TRADE SECRETS (which they spent time and money to create) to the other companies. Winner: European companies.

My points are simple.
1) There is a clear and consistent pattern that the European Comission clearly always rules in the favor for the European Corporations.
2) Forcing companies to divulge trade-secrets PRIOR to finding guilt is equivalent to GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
3) Forcing companies to divulge trade secrets to other companies without compensation for it is simply the same as forced redistribution of wealth to those who do not work hard to merit it = socialism / communism.
4) The US Government is not doing ANYTHING to protect the rights of the American Companies. They have clearly done nothing when Boeing's merger with another aerospace company was rejected, and they continue to turn a blind eye to the EU's lop-sided rulings.

Fighting terrorism is a high priority, but making sure that the economic playing field is level should be way up there too.

[alek_nedic]

equivalent to GUILTY

http://www.analogstereo.com/revox_service_manuals.htm

[David Arbogast]

Bravo Boeing

By simply agreeing to review the situation more closely, Boeing drives home the fact that EU remedies affect more than just Microsoft. They effect hundreds of thousands of citizens in multiple countries, as well as businesses that support commercial and defense efforts in the US.

The potential for overreaching remedy is too great to go unchallenged. The EU should not be granted the ability to directly affect American workers, economy, and security based on their interpretation of one company's business practices. The Bush administration has already stated their objections, and with any luck, they will continue to challenge this case which has already been resolved here in the US.

Windows:-Free neighbor's envy, paid owner's pride.

This news is something like a paradox.Maybe the EC should go after the people offering free operating systems and freewares.I suggest the self styled evangelical Linux community should stand up for Microsoft's right to bundle the media player freely with Windows if they are honest about their self proclaimed aims.And the the EC's directive to MS to disclose technical information is proof enough that Windows is far ahead of the rest.So why not spend some money and enjoy rather than get a free headache.

[arthur-b]

Echelon

Before people speak about how right the US is and how wrong the EC is they should learn a little more about the Echelon project (just as a small example) and then bow their heads in shame.

The "do as I say, not as I do" examples are plentyfull but people seem to ignore those.

Patents anyone? EC companies should worry about possible IP in Open Source because some US Office is granting patents to US companies by the zillions? Gee, I wonder what the hidden agenda is all about.

Microsoft refused to reveal their source code to trusted US sources because of 'national security' but they had no problems revealing it to the Russia and China government? Yet DRM and Sender ID are the answers to our problems? Guess if we don't implement that stuff then suddenly it's our fault as well? Wow, talk about self interested reasoning.

Who would not resist being milked? A cow ending up as your lunch.

[technewsjunkie]

It's NOT about US vs Europe, or fairplay

It's about Microsoft getting into and dominating "new", non-
desktop OS markets BY integrating previously standalone
software into the OS - exactly what the Antirust trial was about.

WHile the trial is over the ramifications, and consequences, go
on.

What the opponents of Microsoft warned of - MS leveraging the
OS to get into NEW markets besides the desktop OS - is what
this is about. How much of information technolgy - the life-
blood of modern economies, should one company, US or
otherwise, be in control of?

If Microsoft's products (Media Player/Browser) are so good, why
don't they SELL them as a separate product -
rather than bundle, then integrate them (so as to get the
Windows distrubtion mechanism)?? Like everyone else has to
compete does!

[Tex Murphy PI]

I respectfully disagree

A lot of your arguments are based on false predications:

> It's about Microsoft getting into and
> dominating "new", non-desktop OS markets BY
> integrating previously standalone
> software into the OS
This argument is as old as time itself, and really isn't valid to stand on in the first place. In the OS software industry, "bundling" new software into the OS isn't new.
IBM, Sun, Apple, and even <gasp!> Linux does it!
Memory management software and defragmentation utilities used to be a third party product until they were incorporated into the OS (desktop, server and mainframes). Web browsers also used to be a separate product - but have also been bundled into the OS.

Many anti-trust pundits ask: Why should bundling be permissible? But that is the wrong question to ask. The question they should be asking is: Does it make LOGICAL sense to bundle something that used be separate from the OS?

Think for a moment. What do most people load onto a computer once it's created?
-> The OS
-> Tools to manage the OS (memory management, defragmentation)
-> Tools to protect their systems (Anti-Virus, Firewall, Spyware removers)
-> Web Browser - because we need to download patches and other software.
-> Some form of Media player. So they can enjoy listening to their non-copy-protected CDs they lawfully bought.

So bundling such a feature into the OS makes logical sense, since they get loaded onto the sytem anyway.

Now what SHOULD be illegal, is making locking the other vendors out of the OS, and forcing people to use the programs bundled with the OS. If I want to ditch the lousy WinXP firewall for a real firewall, then it should let me install and run it without any fuss. Same with a browser, Anti-Virus, etc. etc.

For $200, I expect the OS to give me these things. If the government expects cars to be outfitted with air-bags, seat-belts and what-nots, why can't I expect the OS vendor I choose to provide me with the basic "standard" functionalities in the OS I paid for?


> What the opponents of Microsoft warned of - MS > leveraging the OS to get into NEW markets
> besides the desktop OS - is what this is
> about. How much of information technolgy -
> the life-blood of modern economies, should one > company, US or otherwise, be in control of?
I think you under-estimate the vitality of the Information Technology world. Linux is making serious in-roads into the server arena every day. Although Linux hasn't made as much of a dent on the desktop OS, it's only a matter of time before Linux gets it right.
To say that MS controls the information technology infrastructure is laughable. You might as well sue CISCO for monopoly, since their routers power MOST of the internet.


> If Microsoft's products (Media Player/Browser) > are so good, why don't they SELL them as a
> separate product - rather than bundle, then
> integrate them (so as to get the Windows
> distrubtion mechanism)?? Like everyone else
> has to compete does!
If Netscape's browser was so good, why did they give it away FOR FREE? Why didn't Netscape SELL them as a product - rather than give it away for free so that they could crush Mozilla??

As I said before, I expect a $200 OS to give me MORE VALUE for my money. I expect the basic functionalities such as:
* Defragmentation
* Memory Management
* Web Browser
* Little frills like a media player

I also expect it to be compatible with other competing products if I so choose to use them - which it is.

Let's face it. Oracle, SUN and Netscape took Microsoft to court over Internet Explorer crushing Netscape at its own game - giving the browser away for free.

Why was Oracle and SUN involved? Because they hated Bill Gates (and so do a lot of people), and wanted to see him squirm. What does the browser wars have anything to do with Databases? At least Sun had an excuse over Java - which was settled.

Why was the EU involved? Because Mr. Larry "I'm an honorable Samurai wanna-be, but really have no concept of the code of Bushido" Ellison filed a complaint with the EU to fan the flames across both sides of the Atlantic.

Let's get real here, folks. This Anti-trust fiasco was about a browser - which SHOULD be bundled because everyone uses one! MS did not make it impossible to switch browsers! Hell, I prefer Firefox myself! So why is the European Comission morphing it into a Media Player anti-trust suite?

To say that Windows Media player's dominance (which is very far from it) will somehow allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly to the back-end server, or to the entertainment industry as a whole is laughable!

I can see it now: CIOs rushng to rip out their stable, and functional datacenters for Windows Server! Just so they can listen to their favorite wma files! Oooh! Aaaaah! Unrealistic.

[Catgic]

Every U.S, Corp. should join in to Help Fight the EUC

An American "Atta Boy" for Boeing. It's long overdue, but only a start.

Get Time-Warner back on the team, and G.E. and others who had business mergers shot down and stopped by the EUC. The EUC's guideline is all U.S. business practices and agreements are anti-competition, but all similar activities for EU business are O.K.

All major U.S. Corporations and businesses that do business in Europe need to band together to put a stop to the EUC's socialist engineering of successful American Free-market Capitalism in action.

The companies in EU's socialist democracies can't compete against U.S. Corporations, so they look to the Imperial EUC to hamstring their American competition.

The President and Congress need to be called on the carpet for not being more agressive and proactive about stopping EUC abuses of U. S. businesses.

[Steven N]

Don't get it...

I don't get it. M$ is a convicted monopolist, first in the US, and later in the EU.

The only difference is that M$ can still do wathever they like in the US, even after being convicted. The EU came to the same conclusion, but they decided to something against it, and imposed penalties.

Best proof of the effectiveness of the US settlement is the the firewall in SP2. This sorry excuse for a firewall is now bundled into the OS. So they are allowed to do it again!
Weird justice system, you get convicted, get slapped on the wrist with a soft pillow, but don't bother, you can just keep doing what you like.

Don't blame the EU for being consequent.

[alek_nedic]

M$ is a convicted monopolist

http://www.analogstereo.com/satellite_radio_canada.htm