Print - European Commission Consults Industry About Microsoft Compliance

The European Union's (EU's) European Commission confirmed Friday that it has been consulting with the computer industry to determine whether Microsoft has complied with last year's antitrust ruling that required that the company offer a version of Windows without Windows Media Player (WMP) and license its Windows Server communication protocols. The Commission has written to IT companies, PC manufactures, and retailers to judge whether the compliance terms are acceptable. Microsoft has developed a new version of Windows XP without WMP, but the company has yet to come up with an acceptable name for the product. Microsoft originally planned to call the new version Windows Reduced Media Edition, which the Commission rejected because terms of the ruling clearly stipulated that the new version not be marketed as inferior to the standard OS. According to new reports, the company has now proposed the names Windows XP N (or another letter) or Window XP not including WMP. The new version is currently available only to PC manufacturers, but no major European PC manufacturers are expected to use it. Consumers will be able to purchase the version after an acceptable name is agreed upon.

Microsoft has complied with the EU ruling by posting details of its protocols, which enable easier interoperability with the company's server products, but the licensing fees competitors will have to pay to use the protocols are currently under dispute. The ruling requires Microsoft to offer access to its protocols on a "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" basis, which the company believes doesn't preclude charging for licenses. Many observers believe that Microsoft's terms will undermine the ruling's intent, which was to help restore competition. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has argued that open-source software (OSS) projects won't be able to use protocols because Microsoft's system requires licensing fees, registration, and software activation.

The Commission is speaking to companies such as RealNetworks and open-source developer Samba about Microsoft compliance. The talks should be concluded by the end of this week, and the Commission will likely make a decision by early next month. Under EU law, the Commission can ask Microsoft to modify its proposal. If Microsoft fails to comply, the EU can impose daily fines of as much as 5 percent of the company's daily earnings. Although Microsoft continues to appeal the ruling, the company has maintained that it will work with the EU to be compliant. "We are fully committed to complying with the Commission's decision and in our implementation of these measures and in maintaining an open, constructive, and professional relationship," Dirk Delmartino, a Microsoft spokesman, said.

I hate knee-jerk anti-Microsoft stances. So what if Microsoft was a bit agressive with Windows 95? Those were the wild west years anyway. It's done - long gone - they were took to court and paid the price - grow up and get over it.

I don't understand all the fuss. The user can decide to download Real Player and use that if they wish. Car manufacturers are not forced to sell their cars without tires. Will this be a new trend???

Yes, in the EU it will... I live in EU and for a long time, I was very positive about it.. today, I'm very much against it, and I'm seriously considering moving to the US.

You should be grateful for this. As Firefox and the recent anouncement of IE7 shows, making MS compete with other strategies then the usual 'we buy them or use our monopoly and tie things to the OS to stomp competition' is in your favour. " It's done - long gone - " That's why the case was about server software protocols and MediaPlayer and not about IE. "Car manufacturers are not forced to sell their cars without tires." Good god - car sellers and owner can exchange tires if they like (removing the old ones completely). Besides, the analogy is less then adequate. "I'm seriously considering moving to the US." Good idea! You really should do that...

The governments of the world should have little or no say as to what "software" protocols are written into Windows or whether Microsoft makes any of the protocols it writes available to the world. Software is like writing. I can't tell you what to write, nor how much of what you write that you have to publish, nor can I demand to see the notes you scribble when you do your plot planning etc. etc. In other words, a computer is a logic machine. The software is you or me telling the machine what to do. Anyone can tell the machine what to do as they see fit as long as it doesn't *directly* harm anyone e.g. malicious deleting of files on network connected computers etc. The governments of the world should pretty much just butt out altogether and let software writers write. Especially as these 'judges' and 'government officials' usually don't even know the difference between passing by reference and passing by value.

@msgstephen Your 'writer' analogy shows, that you don't really see what the whole things is all about. The government has to defend free markets, because free markets are unable to do that themselves. As soon as you've got a monopoly market (like MS on desktops), the market will produce sub-optimal results for the customers (e. g. the MS monopoly tax you have to pay). MS is using their desktop monopoly to force themself into the server market by using closed, non-standard protocols. There is no good reason why I should have to by MS server software just because I have MS clients. Network software is about interoperability. Openig up specs is a way to guarantee that a free market with competition can arise/exist, which is in the interest of customers and - in the long term - in the interest of all market members. We wouldn't have the internet nowadays if the DoD kept TCP/IP for themselves...

Mystery, Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop. It is very popular, but it holds no monopoly. People are free to choose non-Intel non-AMD non-Microsoft systems. They are free to choose Intel systems that are non-Microsoft. Or AMD systems that are non-Microsoft. Or Apple systems. And there are guys who buy SUN Oxygen systems as their personal computers. Heck, people can do whatever they want with computers. People have pretty much always have been free to do as they please with computers and should continue to be free to do as they please. It's just that Microsoft on i386 / x64 is a pretty good package and most home owners and small businesses go for it. Although there are millions of Apple computers in the home using Apple OSes and many larger business go UNIX varient on Sun systems etc. or whatever.. People with agendas want others to believe there's a monopoly where there is none. They see alot of Microsoft around because it is popular and hissy fit that's there's a monopoly. But there is no monopoly.

You've got to give it to msgstephen, you can't argue with that much ignorance and stupidity. I haven't got a problem with Microsoft having a 99% market share as long as I CAN use something else without being locked out since, say Linux or Mac OS X doesn't support whatever protocol Microsoft developed for talking between Windows computers (What you fail to see is that the protocol specifications are REQUIRED to support the protocol properly, reverse engineering works but there is no guarantee, and it is very slow). There is nothing wrong with the popularity of Windows, just the fact of what Microsoft USES ITS POSITION FOR. If 90% of people used Macs, Microsoft would be bending backwards to get the protocol specifications out of Apple. As far as bundling software goes, I don't believe that is important, it definetly DOES breed consumer ignorance (not bothering to look at alternatives) but then so does including tires on cars, you couldn't care less (unless you're a car fanatic) until they need replacing.

If you want your software to talk to Microsoft software then use Microsoft software. Microsoft is in no way obliged to make their software perform save how they say it will perform on the boxtop. You don't get that do you? You load a bunch of expectations onto Microsoft that you have no business doing. Microsoft is not obliged, say, to make their software compatible with the Internet protocols. But they do because they knew if they didn't people would choose other software. And, believe it or not, there are people over at Microsoft who enjoy serving their customers. I think you think that Microsoft somehow owes it to the world when the simple truth is that they do not. Nor do their customers. If I want to run Microsoft software on my computers that's between Microsoft and me and basically no one's else's business. If you are so keen on Linux or Apple or Sun then join the Linux or Apple or Sun camp(s) and quit complaining about Microsoft. I hope my contradiction of you is taken as how I think of the matter of the fact. I think many people think that somehow "Microsoft" should x y and/or z. But that is not true because they are not obliged to at all, nor should you expect them to be. Microsoft is just one company with some marketing success in a few of the many segments of computing. Get over them. And you probably shouldn't be eating all the bull of the political naysayers - the negativism is usually not good for a peson.