Could MS just pack up there bags and leave Europe? Would apear as black mail? But leave Europe with what thousands, millions, of people with out a job. No one can sell any MS products in Europe. Just leave. Don't even give them support just hang up the phone, give them one of those birds nIn.

Pack up your stuff MS and just come home leave Europe behind like we did in the 16th century.

I know MS is bad an abused there monopoly but watch out EU is using this because of the hatred we have toward MS. Watch out becasue next it will be the ones we love like Apple or Google. Now they will base it on how much of the market one has regardless of they abuse it. Apple with %80 of music will suffer and Google with more that %60 search will suffer.

We gave them an inch with the one we hate and justify thier action, but what will we do when they want more than just an inch and take those we love.

"Clarity was never the European Commission's objective, but groveling by Microsoft. Through its antitrust enforcement, the European Commission sought obedience—complete capitulation by the world's largest software company; an American company."

Sadly, that may be true. The ruling was surprising because the courts have given the EC an almost God like status. I don't know if Neelie will now go after other US companies or continue to go after Microsoft. My guess is, it'll be the latter. Look out, Vista, here comes Neelie!

Disclosure: I do not work for Microsoft. I work for the US Department of Homeland Security.

Eh ?

You want us to be sympathetic to a company that has repeatedly failed to comply with a legal request from the EU commission?

To an entity that has broken the law ?

Wow. Gonna pick a death row killer for the next piece ?

(Of course not - its a ridiculous thing to do. And its a ridiculous comparison. However, it does illustrate the point, doesnt it?)

Wonder what this'll do to the already stagnant MS share price. Hopefully, it'll provoke a board-level review...

---* Bill

1-Is it against the monopolist attitude of MS?
or
2-Is it against USA? (represented on the figure of MS)

At the moment,the first answer seems the correct one, but we will be watching.

Even although the European Commission was not to be acting on the grounds of justice but out of phobias to the USA, it does not mean we should stop acknowledging that Microsoft deserves its penalty.

In spite of the fact truth is normally grey (neither white nor black), right now we have not got enough reasons to suspect the European Commission is acting because of phobias to America, while Microsoft has been found guilty of almost any possible misdoing (regarding to its monopolistic attitude).

Good post, the EU is very anti-business, especially American business...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
punish corporations
.

I'm sure extorting half a billion in cash had nothing to do with it. Perhaps this is just a simple case of theft. After all, it doesn't seem like consumers will see any benefit. Just who gets to spend all those millions?

I don't really know much about this case at all, nor care:) But I do wonder who gets that money!! That is a whole lot of money!

In my opinion as big of an abuser MS is , adobe and apple do deserve their own take of some antitrust ruling and perhaps they do deserve it more. For some reason nobody is seeing how much of a monopoly abuser Apple has become now that the ipod is widespread and MS has already dealt before with this antitrust stuff so there aren't a lot of lessons they could learn from it. Apple on the other hand does deserve some punishment...

There is a jerk, who makes the settlement look like a "we against the rest of the world" and the crowd howls that the envious EU harmed an American Business because of being too successful.

It's different. "Protecting competition" is a hole phrase, if Microsoft isn't forced to at least allow interoperability. The court hasn't ruled, that MS has too much market share. It has ruled, that MS used it to prevent competition and to eat up existing markets by using it's Windows monopoly.

Microsoft's obvious motive in any suspected efforts to damage VCSY

The two VCSY patents act as pivot points for key elements of Microsoft's continually degraded performance toward attempting to field Bill Gates' early XML vision. The vision has yet to see the light of day, although, for years prior to the granting of 6826744 in November 2004, Microsoft was very energetic in demonstrating what they could do with XML. Now? Not.

They teach you in detective school that if you happen upon a scene and there is someone in the batch that has motive and opportunity and means, you should look at the dates and events and see if the suspect can be aligned with those. I would say Microsoft has the largest motives (which are the power and reach the 6826744 and 7076521 patents could provide Microsoft over all other manufacturers) and the most obvious opportunities (comprised of work done from at least 2000 to late 2004/early 2005 which could have put Microsoft on top of any other manufacturers were it not for the existence of the 6826744 patent) and certainly the means (which are doubtless legendary and often emphasized by advocates of Microsoft's predatory monopolistic manners).

So, in detective school, they also teach you to make note of such actors and dig into their backgrounds to see if they are in the habit of "offing" weaker associates with which they have similar motive and opportunity. And, sure enough, Microsoft has numerous events which tag them as someone you wouldn't want to hold your sandwich while you went to make a phone call.

Looks to me like our preliminary indictment of MSFT has numerous clues and indications which would likely drive a judge to view them with suspicion and a desire to examine. That's Microsoft's fault. Not ours.

VCSY longs are simply interested in the facts and they enjoy digging up factual items regarding Microsoft and apparent connections and allowing others to read.

I happen to be here to make the facts public and entertaining.

It's up to those who read to challenge the juxtaposition of those facts with the image Microsoft itself projects.

It's also up to those desiring to provide MSFT with an alibi or mitigating facts to rehabilitate MSFT's suspicious image. So far, nobody wants to take us up on the technological discussion. Nobody can knock out the patent claims. Nobody has offered a smidgen of evidence Microsoft can achieve Bill Gates' XML fantasies and schemes without relying on 6826744 or 7076521.

So far, Microsoft looks as "innocent" as a jealous woman with a bloody ax.

"Microsoft pales when compared to the integrated oils and producers."

Oh. I see. One other area they teach you to watch for in detective school is other actors who may be willing accomplices ready to provide a misdirection for the suspect's actions. Now, we find you, Mister Wacalaca, wanting us to turn our attention to world energy problems so we can find rascals in that particular industry.

Nice try, but, last we looked, VCSY patents related to web-platforming and web-applications... a place where Microsoft said they wanted to be from 2000 until 2005. Then, they said they didn't need to be there. Then, once VCSY sent them a cease and desist, they decided they actually did want to be on the web... but they haven't been able to do so.

If MSFT had been in the oil industry, the patents would not apply so we would have no need to be suspicious. But, thanks for giving us a perfect analogy to describe Microsoft's place in the software industry. Since they "pale when compared" to what you deride as abusive monopolistic actions in the oil industry, you've at least given us renewed confirmation MSFT are not to be trusted.

Coroboration
Just so you can't say you weren't told:

IBM Patent 7,058,671 referencing VCSY 6826744
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/09/ibm-patent-7058671-refencing-vcsy.html

"Clarity was never the European Commission's objective, but groveling by Microsoft. Through its antitrust enforcement, the European Commission sought obedience—complete capitulation by the world's largest software company; an American company."

This actually seems obvious to most rational people which shows just how disturbing this "ruling" is. You're right to point out that Adobe, Apple, Oracle and Intel should be shaking in their boots. They should be. Of course, this ruling is so broad that other industries should be concerned as well: automotive, pharmaceutical come to mind.

"Microsoft distributed broadcast footage in Windows Media Video format. Hello, earth to Microsoft! The European Commission ruled that you abused your monopoly by bundling Windows Media Player with Windows. The WMV distribution of broadcast content makes the case for Kroes and Company. Smith might as well have gone to today's appeals court ruling wearing a sign saying, "Kick Me!"

What format should they have broadcast in Joe? Grab a brain. Delivering it on *their* site in their format does not in any way prove the EU case. It simply says that Media Player is their format and widely distributed not to mention playable by other media players.

i-man I knew you where a posting-troll.

Where else do you copy and post you canned VCSY FUD?

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=425&mid=425&tof=1&frt=2

Looks identical you spread that FUD like butter.

that would be 13,000 jobs.

500,000,000 dollars in research.

200,000 business partners, who employ almost 3,000,000 people

That would be a rough number of those affected if MS imposed an embargo on Europe.

Just like

Reflections. Phishing in somebody else's pond is a federal offense. It's what all courts understand no matter what language or culture. Not everything Europe does is anti-American. What is happening can easily be played as good cop bad cop allowing the home country to coddle the criminal into a poor choice that gives up the info needed. There are other governments and other technology domains in play here and most have a shallow understanding of the geo-political nature of technology use and technology abuse.

But what would you know about such things anyway?

"Clarity was never the European Commission's objective, but groveling by Microsoft. Through its antitrust enforcement, the European Commission sought obedience—complete capitulation by the world's largest software company; an American company."
----------------------------------------------------
When you go to court, do you say to the Judge, when he rules, "how about lets us compromise?" LOL. No, of course you don't. Because common sense should tell you, and Microsoft, the governments like the EU and the USA, are the last word, and expect to be obayed. If you do not, you do it under penatly of law.

But MS still thinks it can play games with the EU, delay, release insuffent data for services, etc. In the end, the penatly of this fine is tiny by the standards of the income of MS. Which is the bottom line reason that MS has acted the way they have. MS is at stage two now in this drama. Its where they either find enough people to buy off over there, or they start getting hit with further penalities, that may start to hurt.

As far as MS being a US company, save the flag waving, please. If anything, MS is an embarrasement to many people here in the USA. Not only that, MS may have started here in the USA, but clearly it is an INTERNATIONAL company now. You want to sell in the EU countries, outside of the USA, fine. But respect there law if you want to do so and be an International company.

One poster here sujected that MS withdraw from the EU market and stop selling windows over there. I which they would actually do that here in the states too. But its never going happen people, the EU is Micros$ofts biggest custermer, bigger than the USA. MS needs the EU market, and without it, MS will be a cripple.

@asdfadsfasdf
"That would be a rough number of those affected if MS imposed an embargo on Europe."

Oracle, Novell IBM and many others *US company* will fill the hole fast.

--

"You want to sell in the EU countries, outside of the USA, fine. But respect there law if you want to do so and be an International company."

People in ms-watch are not able to understand this simple concept.

asdfadsfasdf:
OK, so Microsoft leaves Europe. What next?
Let's take a case study, shall we?

In Germany, the Church of Scientology is deemed a cult. Government organisations are prohibited, by law, from dealing with cults.

Executive Software is a US company, whose CEO is a member of the Church of Scientology. He has claimed that all his staff are schooled in its principles. As such, German government organisations are not able to buy Executive Software's products with good conscience, as they may be breaking the law when doing so.

Step in O&O SOftware, a German company who made a disk defragmenter for Windows machines that handles NTFS. It took advantage of this now empty niche, targetting the same server-side market that Executive Software's products had.

Oh look. That would be the free market working.

O&O Software's products are very good, by the way. They also do data recovery and some pretty interesting (if esoteric) bluescreen management. I'd highly recommend them.

So, if Microsoft left the EU, what would happen?

Within two years, Linux would be so usable - thanks to third party vendors piling in to plug holes - that Microsoft would feel threatened in their other markets. OpenOffice.Org and other productivity applications would also see increased usage and therefore improvements.

I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to pull out of the EU. They know that they can't afford to - it would become the wedge that other organisations would use to show that you don't need Microsoft, which would bring their monopoly crumbling down.

GeekFreak:
Half a billion in cash is nothing. Seriously. A drop in the ocean.
Go look up how much the EU burns through in its own budget every year.
Then go look up the total GDP of the EU.

Half a billion to the EU is like finding a penny on the ground when your wallet's stuffed with twenties. A nice symbol of luck, but not something you're about to refactor your whole budget for...

And for Microsoft? Half a billion is a pain, but they probably ringfenced that money in their budget when the fines were first mentioned. That money is already allocated and they're just waiting to make the wire transfer. And whilst it's a sizable chunk of cash, they can just take it out of their reserves with no hit to their current profits - so it's hardly a problem for them either.

Symbolically, however, it's a big deal. It's a big warning to others, who may not be able to survive such a fine...

Paul:
Yes, I'd agree that posting in WMV format on their website isn't a problem. It's their website, after all.

However, as I run Linux as my primary desktop OS at home, I may not be able to view it.

Well, not without breaking the law.

If we're really lucky, Opera's suggestion of browser-supported video using Ogg's Theora will take hold, and then in a few years time it won't matter which OS I'm using, but which browser I'm using - abstracting the problem up one layer.

That still doesn't necessarily solve the multi-casting problems etc., but at least gives a nice "fall back" that would be more platform neutral. As it is, for many internet video systems, if you're not on Windows then you're not able to watch it. Which may not sound that important - except that many embedded/consumer devices that COULD play video aren't running Windows...

A major US company who repeatedly ignored European fair competition rules gets its reward: a court ruling insisting on respecting this:

"The Court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably. The absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated."

This has nothing to do with punishing US firms, large marketshare firms, innovative firms and so on. It encourages fair competition on a bases of opening closed protocols/private software. And settlements are an US invention to brake laws 50% instead of 100%. This still is breaking laws however.

Nothing more and nothing less. Microsoft pushed out OS/2, Netscape, Novell Netware, and smaller companies. It should not push out competitive Active Directory firms (Open Source Samba e.g.), Media Player firms and so on.

Not in the last place because of US government / Microsoft abuse: Iran was denied to buy Boeing airplanes. WGA on Vista recently almost blocked thousands of users using their PC with fairly bought licenses. These last two examples make monoplies a horrifying future.

Besides all that, this has a home US precedence with very good results: the IBM PC x86 monopoly was broken and see what brought us that ...

Microsoft did not obey the European law. That is the sole reason for all of that. It has nothing to do with "obedience". Pure FUD IMHO.

To the "MS should leave Europe" fraction: Microsoft has more to lose then the EU does. They could have played by the rules, maybe they would earn a little less. Wenn and if they would leave, there would be no more money for them at all. The USA is historically stronger than Europe. Not in it's future.

"Adapt or die."

People still defending Microsoft and its anti-competitive practices. Wonders never cease.

Philip Storry wrote:

"So, if Microsoft left the EU, what would happen?

Within two years, Linux would be so usable - thanks to third party vendors piling in to plug holes - that Microsoft would feel threatened in their other markets. OpenOffice.Org and other productivity applications would also see increased usage and therefore improvements."

Excellent point! I think Microsoft may well become marginalized in the European market. You're quite right--this could be the opportunity for Linux to achieve critical mass and substantially grow its own commercial ecosystem. With the proliferation of commercial enterprise apps, and increasing hardware support from OEMs, Linux could finally gain widespread acceptance.

Starting with the Linux incursion into the Asian sector, and now with Open Source threatening to usurp the EU, how long will it be before Linux becomes commonplace in S. America and Africa? That would leave N. America and Australia as the last holdouts. These Windows strongholds won't stand forever. Eventually, Open Source will break through into the mainstream, thereby loosening Microsoft's grip on the IT world once and for all.

I believe we are on the cusp of a new age, The Age of Open Source, and The Decline of the Microsoft Empire. We bear witness to a great historical event--I feel humbled...

Joe, what you say is possible, but unlikely. I know from experience- I have done a number of projects for the EU Commission in the past-, that the European Commission has anti-Microsoft fellings for many years now. I also know, again from experierence that they are influenced by strong lobbies formed by Microsoft's competitors. So, I find it unlikely that they would go after another company the way the gone after Microsoft.

Quotes from Joe Wilcox's post, and my take on it:

"Who's next? Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, repeatedly mentioned Apple in his press conference this morning."
---------------------------------------------------
I don't have any problems with the EU going after Apple either. But my crystal ball, says who's next, is Micro$oft again. MS has been fined for not compling with the rules, and now lost the appeal. They now have to do something, or face further escalating fines and other measures.
----------------------------------------------------I "I understand that Microsoft lawyers and executives were frustrated by what they perceived as the European Commission's unwillingness to reach any kind of settlement."
---------------------------------------------------------
Why does MS think they can make a deal with the EU government after a court ruling? Because they basically did it here in the USA by buying a lot of politicians. News flash for MS; this is not lets make a deal. Either comply with the EU rulings or take your marbles back home and play. MS cannot afford to right off its largest market, the EU.
--------------------------------------------------
"But Microsoft just didn't get it, and still doesn't understand what the European Commission wants. Obedience"
--------------------------------------------------
MS is a whole lot smarter than both you and I think it is. They got it a long time ago. The fines they pay, are and were, a whole lot cheaper to their bottom line, than to comply. Its just that simple. Nothing will happen, until the fines and penalties go up to a level that outstrips the profit made in this market. MS will still try to put one over on the EU. For MS, just is just good business practices.
--------------------------------------------------
"Today's statements from both sides of the ocean also show starkly contrasting approaches to antitrust enforcement."
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I don't think it would be far off the mark to say that the Bush administration is in the pocket of MS, and therefore, the DOJ, which is controlled by this administration, by way of appointees, etc. Things could change in the next election coming up, but you can expect MS to donate big bucks to almost every major contender that runs.
----------------------------------------------------
"In December 2004, Microsoft revealed that its court-ordered, European-market version of Windows would be called "Reduced Media Edition." Tactics like that antagonized European competition regulators. The nomenclature might as well have been a middle finger extended before Kroes' face."
--------------------------------------------------
Well, that is now Micro$oft's problem now, in that it has antagonized the whole EU court system. It now faces people for rulings who are less likely to put up with more "of the same" from MS. But the question is, when does the pain of the next fines, exceed the profit level of doing nothing but playing a PR game and delaying?

My guess, is that MS is good at this and really understands the legal system. It will take another 2 to 4 years to get to this point of too painful for MS.

Why is it that any kind of business control or restriction gets this 'Anti-American' mud slung at it? I mean, you control your own monopolies too - AT&T in the 70's, for example.

The EU required Microsoft to level the playing field, so that it didn't dominate just because of the weight of it's monopoly, by providing interoperability. That's protocols and APIs (Anybody ever say 'That's a really innovative API' (at least, in a good way)?)

Anyway, Microsoft failed to comply and have been punished. If they had complied, and then produced products that knocked everyone's socks off and increased their market share - well, then fair enough.

Regarding the investigation of Apple and iTunes - they charged different prices to users in France and the UK (legal) and then prevented UK users from buying from the French site (clearly illegal under EU law). There's at least something to investigate.

Bundle-schmundel - I am writing to you from a Firefox browser - not IE or Safari. Competition is driven by innovation not black-robed legal mechanics.

This is a perfect storm of normal competitive tactics (for both MSFT and its attackers), self-righteous bureaucracy, and terminal "Euro-envy".

Kroes receives 15 minutes of fame and in the long run many of her fellow Europeans will suffer when the next partnership or investment is made on a different continent.

"Microsoft did not obey the European law. That is the sole reason for all of that. It has nothing to do with "obedience". Pure FUD IMHO."

The question is how rational those laws are. EU has laws such as forcing a company with > 40% share of a market to help its competitors, for example, which is a BS law. EU has laws that force a company with a dominant marketshare to hand over its IP to competitors, virtually for free. Just saying, "Microsoft didn't obey EU law" skirts the issues being raised.

For those advocating MS leave Europe, that is not going to happen. MS will ship crippled versions of its products to Europe, that's about it.

I think people inside the software industry are looking to see if MS will actually shift their posture regarding protocol disclosure. Over the years they seem to be just paying lawyers to dance around the fact that they just really, really don't want to do that. It's old hat in the software business - make the door of compatibility swing your way and not the other. MS has been betting the farm on the fact that people outside the industry, in particular judges and regulators, just don't get it about how the software industry works and are not savvy enough to (A) craft wise legislation and (B) actually get a company as large as MS to tow the line. So far MS has had nothing to lose by simply denying the reality of the situation. That also happens a lot in the software biz. There's a unique brand of arrogance that comes from creating products that you can't actually touch and in a certain sense don't have a tangible existence.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.