The decision still doesn't answer the key question which the EU refuses to answer, what is an appropriate royalty cost for sharing a company's innovations. Until that is answered clearly this battle will continue.

I don't care who comprises this EU Court,but the wording of this decision, was as like as if it was written by IBM and Sun. I guess the EU commission and the DOJ will be the Product Managers of the next windows version, since they get to decide on what pieces of software get in and what is left out.

"This decision doesn't exactly make me want to innovate."

A strange reaction.

Typically, one does not find that much that is truly innovative in protocols (the innovation is in the applications that implement the protocols).

And the bundling issue doesn't impede innovation at all.

"Every time you come up with a cool idea for a product, you now have to ask, 'I wonder who is going to complain about this one?'"

Ditto my reaction above. The ruling (as I understand it) doesn't prevent Microsoft from creating ANY products. In fact, the problem was that Microsoft didn't create new products but instead integrated new features into an existing product.

"It's a remedy for a ten year-old competitive landscape."

This sort of has legs. While the specific items in question are old, the general behavior is certainly a potential issue today. Once burned, twice shy.

It seems to me that the real problem is where do you draw the line in what constitutes a separate product. If other OS vendors include a media player (or other app) with their OS then Microsoft should certainly be able to do it as well. Of course, that would allow Microsoft to bundle Office with Windows (as companies like Red Hat bundle OpenOffice with Linux). It's not an easy line to draw.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that competes with Microsoft in a couple of product areas.

"This decision doesn't exactly make me want to innovate."

Um, you can still innovate, you just can't bundle it with Windows. You can still sell it on the open market, just like all your competitors do.

"The EU wants companies to hand over their hard-earned IP [intellectual property] basically for free to competitors..."

This argument is specious. The EU is not after "companies," it's after any company that has a monopolistic market stranglehold preventing competition, such as Microsoft.

"It's not about harm to consumers at all or making the world safe for open-source developers to create software in their basements."

Competitors certainly do have a hand in this matter, but it's *also* about serving the best interests of consumers and Open Source developers. Without competition, we'd all be relegated to using only Microsoft products, and what a lovely world that would be...

Really though, why would a company like Microsoft develop anything new when it has to share that information with it's competitors?

As an analogy, why would a drug company spend a lot of research money to develop new drugs only to be forced to share their formulas and research with another drug company who is then authorized to sell a competing product?

It just makes no sense. So Microsoft has an advantage because they wrote the OS *and* the applications that run on it... big deal. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on either OS or applications. The only ones saying so are their competitors who have their own OS and applications to sell, they're just not as popular so there's a lot of sniping.

It really comes down to one teeny tiny little word:

MONOPOLY

There are some things that any self-respecting company has every legal and moral right to do, but that a MONOPOLY has no legal or moral right to do.
There definitely seem to be industries that benefit from monopolies, whether or not directly sanctioned by the government. Tranportation infrastructure, electrical power infrastructure, and (at one time) even land-line telephone service all benefited consumers because they were built and run by monpolies. The conundrum is that because Microsoft's monopoly has benefitted consumers so far (and I would be among the first to agree that it has), the questions remain:

Is this monopoly legal?
Are there actions that any other company has a right to perform that a monopoly cannot perform?
Can we extrapolate that because the Microosoft monopoly has proven consumer benefits, it will continue to provide the same consumer benefits forever?

The answers to the first two questions are a matter of law. Not easily decipherable, but law nonetheless.
The answer to the last question is open to much debate. For example, early telephone service grew and was cheap and reliable and innovative due to the benevolent monopoly that was AT&T. But since that monopoly was broken up, can we say that telecommunications innovation has slowed or stopped? Can we say that the explosive growth in cellular communications is a harmful side effect of the break-up of AT&T?

"why would a company like Microsoft develop anything new when it has to share that information with it's competitors"

No one's forcing them to give the software to their competitors.

"Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on either OS or applications."

Actually, by most definitions, Microsoft has monopolies in both.

I'm sorry but 'bundling' a media player for free in an OS a consumer paid for is not anti-competitive. With that logic, you might as well say the bundled Windows Calculator is anti-competitive.

This is an EU socialist sham. It has nothing to do with open-source, rather the widening of opportunity for EU companies to compete. Microsoft will be forced to raise prices on its products sold in the EU to compensate for this court decision.

They only gunned after Microsoft because of its US capitalist origins. So now MS has to work jointly with European SAP instead of purchasing the company outright.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? It was only in March the EU commissioner raised concerns about Apple iTunes downloads being limited to Apple iPods - stating "Do you think it’s fine that a CD plays in all CD players but that an iTunes song only plays in an iPod? I don’t. Something has to change."

So a hearing is now underway in which Apple has to testify along with the music industry.

FWIW, iTunes non-DRM downloads are playable on anthing that plays AAC. Even Microsoft's own Zune player plays AAC.

For the last time, THERE IS NO iPod/iTunes LOCK IN.

Forcing monopolies to allow interoperability is nothing new:

This is quite similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-a-Phone_v._FCC

No Microsoft employee complains about that ruling against ATT.

A message to Microsoft employees: Stop Whining!

and to KarlB there is room for more theories like yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Examples_of_common_conspiracy_theories

I am most disappointed with the American companies forming ECIS. Today, their spokesperson claims small companies such as IBM Norway, Oracle Norway etc. are unable to compete with Microsoft without this verdict. They even went further and said that MS did not invent any of this technology. Last time I checked, IBM Norway was like 10 times bigger in headcount and 6 times bigger in revenue than Microsoft Norway.

My question is how the court failed to ask how Microsoft without any new technology is unable to generate a monopoly.

The spin is just remarkable. Small companies. Unable to compete.

To me it seems like a Thrust Upon Monopoly - Microsoft did well because the competitors made bad decisions.

Microsoft competes the hardest when it is up against the wall. I think IBM, Oracle and others should get ready for some serious competition in the marketplace.

Ex MS employee (7 years, quit 1 year ago)

Microsoft is a copycat company. There has never been one innovation coming out from Redmond. Sometimes, when a product is original, it's the result of an acquisition.

As for monopolies, the IOWA consumer case memos show pretty clearly that Bill Gates was (and is) motivated in destroying competition. They fear the competition. Playing on the same league is like death to them.

This resulted, results, and will result in extremely questionable strategies which have a parallel, when it comes to competition, to what the Bush administration is doing to every other country in the world.

(Off topic...) Do not kid yourselves about Apple not trying to lock you in to iTunes. Non-DRM content is a tiny fraction of music sold on iTunes. And Apple takes technical measures to make sure you use iTunes with your iPod.

So don't kid yourselves here.

Petter, I do believe you are right. From my perspective, Bill Gates' cunning and vision were helped a lot by the collective stupidity (i.e. "none of us is a stupid as all of us") and lack of vision of IBM's middle management. IBM didn't see PC software as being worth much, IBM didn't see Bill Gates as anything more than a young kid, and IBM handed the PC software market to Bill Gates. Bill Gates just took them up on their offer.
And for the most part, Microsoft's business decisions reflected an accuracy of vision and clarity of execution that few software companies can match. Hence their wild success. I am aware of a few shady business dealings, but then again they didn't invent shady business dealings.
And yes, Microsoft's vision and execution were great for the low-end (price-wise) computing market, opening up general-purposes computing to the masses. Without Microsoft, PCs would likely be stuck with some over-priced and ugly-as-a-mud-fence text interface from IBM.
But at some point, Microsoft's brilliant business strategy gave it a monopoly position. And its ability to saturate the market means that it must squeeze more money out of existing customers. And at that point, two things happen. First, Microsoft offers less and less value for more and more money. It can't be helped. How else can it please the stockholders? Second, it is finally deemed a legal monopoly and that restricts it from many of the very tactics that it needs to keep pleasing the stockholders.
And yes, working for a monopoly in such a vibrant industry is not nearly as much fun as it was in the early start-up days. But antitrust law is here to remind them that being a monopoly means the rules of the game have changed. It's not any fun to grow up and get old.
But regardless of the future of the Microsoft monopoly, its contributions to bringing low-cost high-power computing to the world cannot be overlooked nor scorned. And one cannot help but notice that while most monopolies end up killing themselves without outside help, most of the rest end up dying under the burden of outside scrutiny, but (nearly) only Microsoft continues to thrive as a company. (Ok, DeBeers also continues to thrive, too, but they are beyond the reach of most antitrust laws and don't provide the far-reaching world-changing benefits that Microsoft did.)

KarlB:
Bundling a free media player with your OS is not anticompetitive.

Bundling a free media player with your monopoly position OS when it speaks your proprietary media streaming protocol, which only your proprietary media streaming server talks, and when there are existing streaming media companies with players in the market - that's illegal.

Sorry that the second paragraph there is a bit long, but as you can see, the position is a little bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

Specifically, it's about using your monopoly desktop operating system to try and extinguish existing companies in a market you have only just entered.

So, did you like the future where Microsoft are the only streaming media client, server and protocol provider? Did you think it was going to be rosy? Do you really feel comfortable with Microsoft gaining monopoly control of streaming media provision?

Still, maybe next time, you could think about the market (which is what a monopoly case is about) rather than the product...

Oh, and by the way, take the tinfoil hat off.

The EU is not some red under the bed, ready to discriminate against Americans for the sake of justifying their paranoias.

In fact, funnily enough, one of the key complainants in this case was Real Networks Inc., who are headquartered in... Washington DC. And on the server specifications side of the complaint, a small company named Sun Microsystems had a complaint. Go on, guess which nation they're headquartered in...

Care to guess why these American companies chose to complain in the EU, rather than use those oh-so-politically-independent American courts, like Netscape et al. did?

Actually, don't bother. I'm sure that in your mind, the main reason probably involves mind control, aliens and rectal probing...

You MSFT worker bees specialized for years in reverse engineering, kludge code, and "borrowed" IP to make the execs happy. Dozens of small companies were pillaged and plundered as you built an empire mostly through cunning and guile. Upper management was willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of shareholder equity to count coup. And now you complain that this EU ruling means you can't innovate?

LOL x 10

I'd criticize your innovative talents -- if there was any evidence to prove they exist.

“and the animals hath no name because nobody had named them yet. And men had no laws, because crime did not exist”
It is true that Ms triumphed when it gave us a choice. And that took them to the top. But they changed-they became arrogant, extortionists and monopolistic. (Have they got the ring to dominate all?) So now they want to avoid any possibility of choice (even manipulating public opinion through bloggers and shills) But the world is not so young- crimes have got names, and now we know which ones they are.

A better world: Some day I will enter a store and will be able to choose a PC with the hardware and the price I want. With the OS I want. And this OS will allow me to install all the applications I desire (browser, media player) from a list (maybe “most popular”) It will all be about choice. And the only factor now altering the equation (Ms) will be pacified.

Let me just clarify some inaccuracies made by some posts. A Monopoly is NOT illegal in the US and it's not illegal in Europe. Microsoft according to the DOJ LEGALLY acquired it's monopoly. According to the DOJ ruling Microsoft only protected it's monopoly illegally. Secondly to those describing the "evil" bundling Microsoft made, let just say that ALL software companies engage in buldling. For example, linux bundles StarOffice. The court's decision is that specifically, because microsoft is a monopoly, it is not allowed to do what everybody else does.
So, let's not pretent that Microsoft used some kind of of extraordinary evil tactic when it bundle Media Player or IE.
I also find rediculous that judges gets to decide whether the Server API published by Microsoft are technically complete or wether the licensing price is right, especially when Sun Microsystems the company that first filed the complain with EU Commission has made a deal with Microsoft to license them!!!! Finally court decisions should protect consumers and not competitors from monopolies like Microsoft.

According to the DOJ ruling Microsoft only protected it's [sic] monopoly illegally.

Technically, you are correct.

Secondly to those describing the "evil" bundling Microsoft made, let just say that ALL software companies engage in buldling [sic]. For example, linux bundles StarOffice.

It's not the bundling per se. It's that Microsoft's bundling is deemed to be illegally protecting its monopoly. (And while we're getting technical, Linux doesn't bundle anything. Linux is only the kernel. Most Linux-based distributions do, however, bundle all sorts of software.)

The court's decision is that specifically, because microsoft is a monopoly, it is not allowed to do what everybody else does.
So, let's not pretent [sic] that Microsoft used some kind of of extraordinary evil tactic when it bundle [sic] Media Player or IE.

Nobody said anything about evil. Just about illegal.

I also find rediculous [sic] that judges gets [sic] to decide whether the Server API published by Microsoft are technically complete or wether [sic] the licensing price is right, especially when Sun Microsystems the company that first filed [sic] the complain [sic] with EU Commission has made a deal with Microsoft to license them!!!!

I also find it ridiculous that RIM had to pay NTP over U.S. $600M for patents that were later ruled invalid. Such is the result when the legal system is used as a tool for business.

Finally court decisions should protect consumers and not competitors from monopolies like Microsoft.

Part of protecting consumers is protecting competitors from monopolies that illegally protect their monopoly position.

What a crock of sh*t from these MS employees.

Every aspect of the decision harks back to an illegal leveraging of Microsoft's desktop monopoly to win in other markets - workgroup servers, media players, etc.

Nothing illegal about having a monopoly in desktop OSes. Nothing illegal about making a workgroup server. But there's something very illegal about tying one thing to the other to make it the only effective choice if you use said desktop OS which if we look a few lines higher HAS A MONOPOLY in the market.

Oh and lastly, i fart in the general direction of Microsoft innovation.

What is interesting about this decision really has nothing do with being a monopoly or what Microsoft has done. To me, the EU now needs to be fair and consistent. This means that Ubuntu, Red Hat can no longer include Firefox or OpenOffice or GIMP or any of the applications that it bundles. This means that Apple can no longer include iCal, Mail, or the Activity Monitor.

While the anti-Microsoft people want to cheer, let us really think about our industry. We need to build and provide complete end-to-end solutions for users. The OS is no longer just a loader and a file system. The OS is the sum of the applications that is bundled with the product.

Maybe someday Apple will be told that its media player in its iPhone will need to be removed and 3rd parties like Nokia and Motorola should be able to replace the media experience.

This is a horrible decision. Bad for customers, bad for developers, bad for our industry, and bad for anyone that simply wants to use a device.

"The EU wants companies to hand over their hard-earned IP [intellectual property] basically for free to competitors..."
Yeah, like Microsoft was all set to do with OOXML, wasn't it? Just hand its hard-earned IP for free to its competitors. Wasn't it lucky the ISO stepped in just in time and put a stop to that.

@carl
"This means that Ubuntu, Red Hat can no longer include Firefox or OpenOffice or GIMP or any of the applications that it bundles. This means that Apple can no longer include iCal, Mail, or the Activity Monitor."

Sorry Carl, U have totally missed the point.
Firefox GiMP etcetera are not Redhat or Canonical products!! More: these products works on windows too. WMP on linux doesn't work!!!

I'am a consumer and I feel that this sentence is about to protect my interest.

I'am only-linux user for some years and every time I bought a PC i've paid for a windows copy. (Come in Italy and try to buy a discounted PC without windows)

In my country there is a specific word to describe these behaviors (add ECMA fast track and ISO stuff), this word is MAFIA.

Sorry for my poor English.

Simply put, I wish Microsoft was not a public company. Then it could choose not to provide its products to Europe, and I could see it fold under the collective shitheap known as OpenSource.

Microsoft changed the world. Everyday, no matter what software you use, no matter what hardware you use - it is more affordable because of Microsoft.

To every person feeling happy about this decision. Here is a great western saying to brighten up your day - Fuck You!

Ha ha ha. Microsoft Employee says they are worried about not being able to innovate!!! Microsoft has never innovated, it just bullies and purchases companies that do. That is the reason why it has been found guilty in both the US and in Europe.

I for one welcome this decision. I have worked here for 3 years and for me, it is simply a paycheck. The company is filled with hubris and arrogance the likes of which I have never witnessed. I own an iPod and get crucified for it when I bring it to work. These droids actually ran out and bought a Zune player. Place treats technology like a religion and it is sickening. I stay here for the health care, keep to myself and ignore my coworkers.

"Every time you come up with a cool idea for a product, you now have to ask, 'I wonder who is going to complain about this one?'"

Yeah, I can imagine how was they come up with cool ideas at Redmond:

"Hey, let's "invent" a Window manager for PCs so it will be easy to use, like the Macs, and let's bundle it with each PC so it can dominate the market."

"Hey, let's "invent" an Internet Explorer, just like Netscape, but let's bundle it into the OS, so we can dominate the market."

"Hey, let's "invent" an Instant Messenger, just like ICQ and AIM, but let's bundle it into the OS, so we can dominate the market."

"Hey, let's "invent" a Media Player, just like Real Player, but let's bundle it into the OS, so we can dominate the market."

These are a few examples of products that started as crap but eventually dominated the market because they were bundled into Windows.

william, Microsoft is about to get their balls cut off!

Microsoft hit with patent suit from Vertical Computer
at MarketWatch (Fri, Apr 20)
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bC6B7AE62-87A8-4649-BC91-5F5C09A40D93%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

By: RapidRobert2
16 Sep 2007, 02:42 PM EDT
Msg. 197644 of 197773

I wonder how displeased the good Judge Everingham will be on November 2nd, during the scheduling conference, when he learns MSFT presented proposals for a settlement to VCSY and VCSY agreed to the settlement papers, only for MSFT to then back out of the deal to resolve all the issues with INFRINGEMENT of 'SiteFlash'?

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk...MSFT has more than one mark against themselves in the court in East Texas and backing out of a 'settlement' won't go over well with Judge Everingham or Judge Folsom.

Not a good way for MS to endear themselves to ANY court, especially one in East Texas.

RR
IMO

Simply put, I wish Microsoft was not a public company. Then it could choose not to provide its products to Europe, and I could see it fold under the collective [BigToe's father] known as OpenSource.

Hmmmm, since a lot of Wurope is already moving to OpenSource and Microsoft is fighting hard against that move, I wonder who really needs who?

Microsoft changed the world. Everyday, no matter what software you use, no matter what hardware you use - it is more affordable because of Microsoft.

Fine. They get a nice plaque. But it doesn't entitle them to perform illegal actions to perpetuate their monopoly.

To every person feeling happy about this decision. Here is a great western saying to brighten up your day - [what BigToe's mother taught BigToe to say to anyone he disagrees with]!

Actually, while I believe that Microsoft's illegal actions to protect its monopoly must be curtailed, I DO NOT BELIEVE AND HAVE NEVER BELIEVED that bundling is the problem nor that unbundling is anything but a completely stupid remedy. But that's all that judges and lawyers have shown that they know how to do to anything they cannot simply drain of cash.
I do support forcing Microsoft to openly document its formats and protocols to the extent that permits others to interoperate. And along with that, to prevent Microsoft from using the courts to force others to stop reverse engineering those protocols that are poorly documented. Then Microsoft can bundle all it wants. Look at how Firefox spread so far and wide, even with a bundled IE.
Unbundling is wrong and foolish and fraught with dangerous precedent. In this, I fully support Microsoft's right to bundle. Unbundling is proven to be rejected by consumers and to not really put a dent in the illegal behavior.

From european point of view, I will just ask one question. Is it so hard for Microsoft to define useful interfaces to it's OS? Thats all they should do and it has nothing to do with inovation and other crap this post is about. Logic is simple, Microsoft has the dominant OS and by not defining intefaces to it, it prevents other programs to be competitive. In Europe that's monopoly. Simple as that.

"This decision doesn't exactly make me want to innovate..."

There is only one response to the EU ruling...

And it is not to stop innovating. Microsoft is just going to have to innovate smarter and faster. While I agree that MS has "innovated to the next step" in a lot of technologies, it is capable, with its massive resource pool of money and people, of developing spectacular originals. Albeit buggy originals, but originals none the less.

I have read with interest all of the MS bashing regarding the EU and just as my point of view what MS should do "Just for the Union" is just supply a basic OS, regardless of the flavor with a EULA to match. No Bells, No Whistles, Just an OS.

Then, if the "Across the Pond" users want more, let them download each additional at a cost with another more restrictive EULA, for each including a disclaimer that the download violates the "Commission" and that they are totally responsible for the violation. The download should present the EULA with a line by line checkoff.

Then, if the "Across the Pond" users gets ticked off by the process, remind them that it is their "Commission!"

I don't see the big deal here.
Micrososft should just ship a low-end version of their OS to Europe, and let the rest of the world get the feature-rich versions. And when I say low-end version, I mean Vista Basic with none of the accessory apps, no maintenance tools (no defragmenter, for example), no media player, no browser, no nothing. I'm tempted to remove the shell as well and just offer a command line.

Then Microsoft packages all the stuff they ripped out into a "Plus Pack", and charge 50 euros for that. This way they comply with the EU's ridiculous laws and make all the more money. :)

Good Idea Pepe! you are a genius, imagine,I could install for example defragmenter: ashampoo, browser:firefox,Opera Media player:Real player, Winamp, Firewall:ZoneAlarm , and all are free and all are better than those of Microsoft, and without having to get a higher memory because Microsoft applications will not be there. I hope that Microsoft ships a low-end version for USA and -we should not be selfish- towards the rest of the world

Boy, the air is a little heated in here ;-)

Like others said before:

It's not about un-bundling

It's not about stifling innovation (chuckle)

It's not about some conspiracy to promote Open-Source

IT'S ABOUT stimulating Competition !! And for those Dunderheads who don't get that - Competition generally means lower prices...

...anyone who has watched Microsoft manipulate their licence agreements to seed enforced upgrades and foster Microsoft-only interoperability(as I have)will know exactly what Microsoft's game is, and always has been - to WIN AT ANY COST.

The sad thing is, the user is the one that ends up with the COST.