- Related Stories
-
Near-final Windows Vista version issued
September 1, 2006 -
More security bang for fewer bucks
August 29, 2006 -
Windows defense handcuffs good guys
August 10, 2006 -
Chills at Microsoft's security huddle
July 24, 2006 -
Antitrust angst for Microsoft
July 12, 2006 -
'No alternative' to Microsoft fine
July 12, 2006 -
EU knocks Microsoft with $357 million fine
July 12, 2006 -
Microsoft swims upstream on security
June 22, 2006 -
EU voices concerns over Microsoft's Vista
March 29, 2006 -
Microsoft attacks EU over antitrust process
February 15, 2006 -
Microsoft not out of legal woods yet
October 11, 2005 -
Microsoft updates slimmed-down Windows
June 8, 2005 -
Europe plays hardball with Microsoft
March 24, 2004
Microsoft wants the 25-nation bloc to set clear boundaries as to what it can and can't do. By asking European regulators for guidelines now, Microsoft hopes to avoid an antitrust battle after Vista ships, where it might be forced to pull features out of the operating system. However, the EU has only provided a more general picture of the landscape.
Last month, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer met with EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. The visit came after the software giant received a list of 79 questions related to Vista from the European Commission, the EU's executive body. Despite this list, Microsoft feels it is driving blind.
"We still have not received the guidance we're seeking," Jack Evans, a Microsoft spokesman, said Thursday. "In July, we received a formal list of questions, but no answers about what specific concerns the Commission has, or how we should address them. We need answers, not questions."
But as far as the Commission is concerned, it is not the regulators' responsibility to vet Vista before it ships. Rather, it is Microsoft's responsibility as a "near monopolist" to abide by EU competition rules--in particular, those that prohibit abuse of a dominant market position, Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said Friday.
"The Commission is ready to give guidance to Microsoft and has done so so many times, but it is not up to the Commission to give Microsoft a definitive green light before Vista is put on the market," Todd said. This is also the message Kroes gave "very clearly" to Ballmer when the two met on Aug. 22, he added.
The main rule for Microsoft is to ensure that the market allows competition between security providers on the merits of their products, Todd said. "If business and home users are deprived of choice, a security 'monoculture' based on Microsoft products may lead to less innovation and could harm all computer users. Security risks could increase, and not decrease," he said.
What's the fuss about?
The European Union won't publicly specify what parts of Vista it doesn't like, but Microsoft has highlighted some areas where it sees "confusion."
- PatchGuard
- Feature in 64-bit version of Vista that locks down the kernel. Security companies say they're being locked out and need kernel access for their products to secure systems.
- BitLocker
- Feature included in Vista Business and Ultimate that lets people encrypt all the data on their hard drive. Other businesses sell encryption software.
- Windows Defender
- Anti-spyware tool that is part of all versions of Vista. Third-party products offer similar functionality. Until recently, Defender could not be disabled by those products.
- Windows Security Center
- Feature in Vista that gives a "neutral" view of the status of security software, Microsoft says. Other players aren't so sure about that neutrality, since Microsoft competes with them.
Source: Microsoft
Microsoft, with its $34 billion war chest, is now a player in the antivirus market. It launched Windows Live OneCare for consumers and is readying enterprise security products under its new Forefront brand. With its huge presence on desktops, the software giant has a built-in advantage--one that is making some security companies nervous.
Earlier this month, Microsoft 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. Last week, however, the company said the European launch is on track. Vista is expected to be released to computer makers in November and is slated to be broadly available in January.
European dispute
Microsoft and the Commission have been at loggerheads for years over antitrust. Two months ago, European regulators slapped the Redmond, Wash.-based company with a $357 million fine for noncompliance with a 2004 antitrust ruling, which Microsoft is still appealing.
The argument over Vista is only the next stage in that discussion, Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Technologies Associates, wrote in a research note published Friday. "This argument is an extension of a longtime dispute that essentially has no real solution," he wrote.
In the landmark 2004 European ruling Microsoft was faulted for abusing its market position by shipping its own media player software with Windows, giving it a huge market share in one go. In Vista, security software and features have emerged as the hottest point of contention among a number of concerns.
"The Commission has monitored and discussed with Microsoft several aspects of Vista, including Microsoft's integration of security software into Vista," Todd said.
Microsoft is worried that the European regulators might require it to strip some security features out of Vista. "The bottom line is that we want to launch Vista in a fully lawful manner, and we want to avoid regulatory decisions that could increase security risks for European consumers," Evans said.
See more CNET content tagged:
European Union, commission, margin, Microsoft Windows Vista, Steve Ballmer
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.
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...
Request that you change:
>>>are already<<<
TO
>>>have always been<<<
Walt
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.
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
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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-)
>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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
EU is plain out of touch and greedy for money.
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.
And to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782014.htm
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden
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
This is a blatantly obvious money grab by the EU.
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.
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
Göteborg Sweden
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.
Too much of anything can be bad, no matter how good a thing it is. This includes capitalism and its logical outcome, monopolies.
- Read Alan Greenspans Own Story Against Anti Trust Laws!
- by Björn Lundahl September 18, 2006 1:56 PM PDT
- Go to;
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (106 Comments)http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden