Microsoft’s £250m Media Player fight.

[lliam]

Hey Guys, I read this on Thurs Mar 4th in my Daily Newspaper. I'm interested in your opinions on this topic. Is Bill being treated fairly or, is he being 'Dictated' to by European Commission little Hitlers.
=================================

MICROSOFT could forced to drop its £250m Media Player from Windows software sold in Europe.

The European Commission wants the US giant to offer computer makers a version of the operating system without the multimedia programme.

It argues that ‘unbundling' the software would make it fairer for rivals such as Real One and QuickTime. An EU order is expected this month.

Microsoft claims that extracting its music and video programme would be difficult and could harm the performance of Windows.

It is almost certain to challenge any ruling against it – which could include big fines for breaching competition laws – through the European courts.

The EC could also try to force it to include rival media players with Windows to make them just as easy for users to access.

In 2002 Microsoft founder Bill Gates outlined his version of ‘the digital decade’ with Media Player at its centre.

Independent analyst Robin Helm said the EU could ‘throw a wrench’ into Mr Gate’s plan for his software to be the dominant way to listen to music and watch films on PC’s.

[barfle]

I'm not sure what £250m means in the context of this article. 250,000,000 pounds? For what? I just bought WinXP and it didn't cost anywhere near that much.

But moving beyond the questions, Microsoft has a reputation of being the 1,000 pound gorilla, and one way they seem to be enforcing their might is by integrating features that people have shown they like into their operating systems. They did that with Internet Explorer, and now it seems they are doing it with WMP.

Microsoft (which means, of course "small" and "limp") is extremely clever in their ability to take an external program and integrate its features into their main program so tightly that they can claim their main program would suffer if they were forced to remove it.

To me, this appears to be predatory competition. They can afford to include a competitor's features at little or no cost. Naturally, the competitors complain about this tactic, and since MS has set themselves up as the meanest SOB in the valley, they should expect the attacks.

[lliam]

Hi Barf, the £250m must be what he spent on research etc for his software, it doesn't cost anything to download.

I don't know why the EC wants Bill to do anything with his windows. I've got Win XP Home Edition, WMP 9, RealOne Player and Quicktime, without any conflicts. I still think the EC is Dictating to Bill. We can't do what we like here in the UK. Over a decade ago our farmers where told, how much milk to produce, so they had to get rid of any surplus cattle, then they were told what to grow. We had to have straight bananas not bent ones. Only last week they are now telling us what sort of yogurt to eat. If thats not dictatorship, then, whatis? :confused:

<small>[ 03-08-2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: lliam ]</small>

[piqaboo]

originally posted by lliam:
We had to have straight bananas not bent ones.

You be kiddin' me, bro, no???


For what possible reason could the EU be demanding linear instead of curvilinear bananas?

[lliam]

You be kiddin' me, bro, no???


For what possible reason could the EU be demanding linear instead of curvilinear bananas?
===============================================

I kid you not Piq, the EC orders us about like we're their surfs. They told us how much steel we could produce, throwing thousands out of work. In fact you could say all our resources are ruled by the EC. The yogurt we eat has to be renamed to the same product as a certain eastern European country, its going to cost the dairy industry a small fortune to change all their labels.

[EJA]

I think it is a lot of male bovine excrement, myself, when a pseudo-government organization tells a manufacturer what features they may or may not include in their product. It is analogous to the EU telling GM that they may not include their own audio systems in their automobiles, and that they must make it easier for other manufacturer's audio systems to be installed in GM cars. Of course, the EU has now enacted trade sanctions against the US for our giving tax reductions to American companies that export. They have declared US tax law "illegal" and are punishing us for our "illegal" tax law. These sniveling scoundrels are a bunch of socialists who think that only they know best. They are micturating in their mess kit, aka our face.

[haggis]

Piq,
The notorious EU Regulation 2257/94 states bananas must be "free of abnormal curvature" and should be at least 5.5 inches long.

You're in the biotech field; do you support banning genetically modified foods? Parts of Africa are starving because if they buy GM foods from the west the EU has threatened to retaliate against those countries, withholding subsidies and favorable trade benefits. Remind me again why Europe is supposed to be so noble?

Based on all this the U.S. should take the EU seriously because..?

[piqaboo]

I dont think we are ready to face the unintended consequences of GM foods, but I dont think we should be blackmailing others. Immediate survival always takes precedence. Without it, there is no point in long term planning.

I dont think GM foods will have especially problematic results as food. As crops however they have a lot of potential to screw the pooch environmentally (who expected Bt crops to kill monarch butterflies?). Then again, so did cloned crops, which have been around for quite a while. We just start losing diversity.

Fortunately, the US is now rich enough to favor diversity again in its foods, and we're rescuing some oldies from potential oblivion. Perhaps this ?fad? will balance some of our homogenization harm from the past years?
Laws like the EU 22794/xx counter that - this regulation pretty well bans sweet red bananas (tiny little things), and other varieties. How sad. I wonder if they let plantains thru?

I'm becoming increasingly likely to buy certified organic, non-GE foods as I become increasingly able to afford them.......then I submit to my fastfood addiction and eat whatever version of beef and tomato that Carl or Jack want to serve me. Sigh.

<small>[ 03-08-2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[EJA]

Read the regs . . . plantains are excluded. Ugh . . . read too many gov't regs lately . . . gettng too good at it.

Let's grow a whole bunch of plantains and flood the EU with them. This way, they will at least momentarily have something to keep them busy. (A busy EU is a happy EU, and a happy me, too.)

I guess its the arrogance of the EU that really gets under my skin. They are a bunch of ametures, and they think that they are geniuses, and the best thing that ever happened to humanity, etc. Meanwhile, we humanity are rolling our eyes.

[Shapley]

I seem to recall reading that the EU regs on bananas were designed to stop the importation of African bananas, which tend to be smaller and more profoundly curved than the Central American and South Pacific varieties. Since many of the South Pacific Islands are European protectorates, there is a vested interest in aiding their economies. If it can be done through regulation, well that just serves to provide meaning to the lives of beaurocrats everywhere.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I haven't read the proposed EU Constitution, but from what I've heard of it, it's got more posterior osculation of special interests than anything I've seen in the US.

The general idea in the US (generalization - I know exceptions exist by the hordes) for special interest groups (ethnics, sexual preference, stature, faith, yadda, yadda, yadda) is to remove barriers that would infringe on their rights, not to create special priveliges for them. At least that's what I think we're trying to do.

From what I've seen of Europe (and I've seen a fair amount of it), Socialism is the trend and the target, which, as you might guess, I find abhorrent.

[piqaboo]

Lets do send them lots of plantains.
Lovely long bananas with little or no curve (or sugar until black and squishy ripe).
Many are grown in CA/SA after all....

[dai bread]

There is a certain amount of "mote & beam in the eye" here. Both the U.S. and the E.U. give vast subsidies to agriculture.

This is bad enough for us & the Aussies. It's disaster for 3rd world farmers, who can't sell their produce against what is essentially dumped product.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by daibread:
Both the U.S. and the E.U. give vast subsidies to agriculture.

Too true. Our internal sugar subsidies are part of what keeps the Carribean countries poor, and pays our sugar farmers for their Carribean cruises (you know, trickle down - they get rich, they go on vacation, they buy souvenirs and food.)

It costs us much more to make sugar than it costs the islands, but they cant sell it to us, their close neighbor.

Ah well, we can still send in Marines to mess with their heads and economies from time to time (j/k - sick j/k)

[EJA]

I agree. Agricultural subsidies are bad. Free trade is good. Ag subsidies seem to be most effective at encouraging bad farming practices. I would like to see them abolished.

[dai bread]

EJA, you're welcome in NZ any time! Australia too, I'm sure. Especially since their new free trade deal with the U.S. specifically excludes sugar. Queensland, Australia, produces a lot of sugar.

[Nicole Marie]

Apples, oranges or bananas. The reason for some of these seemingly bizarre laws are for that countries domestic protection and the US should take a hint. The US has one of the largest trade deficits in the world. We buy more then we sell. The EU and China sell more then they buy. Many of the laws/restrictions on trade they have in place are to protect their domestic markets, trade surplus/shortage and consumers. The US would be smart to take a hint and try to drop our trade deficit by enacting some of our own rules. Free trade is dangerous, responsible trade is fair.

<small>[ 03-11-2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[Rudy2toot]

In the end, the economists were proven right. The tariff increases were bad economics and bad politics. Wherever Mr. Bush went in his political travels, he heard complaints from manufacturers who said the tariffs were driving up their costs and making them less competitive here and abroad. Moreover, the tariffs were a disincentive for U.S. steelmakers to modernize, cut costs and make other improvements in their production line.

Washington Times 2003

Bush had placed a tariff on steel imports to protect the industry in heavily democratic states to win votes. In retalliation, the EU and China increased tariffs in return and the WTO declared the US tariffs illegal.

Hey, a minor in economics means diddly but I do understand some of the implications of manipulating free-trade.
If you put a tariff on say, steel imports, Americans pay more for steel. We make a lot of things out of steel - like vehicles. So you pay more for a car but you don't get a pay raise so you cut costs somewhere else. Like, shop for the cheapest clothing - usually made overseas, or cheaper produce - from...not Florida!

Part of the reason we have a higher trade deficit than nearly anyone is because we use trade as a tool to assist poorer countries. Its like welfare. Most of the world sees the last Super Power (us), as responsible for the world economy. We make deals to import from countries trying to stabilize their economies which in turn stabilizes the global economy and relieves a lot of political unrest.

Its one heck of a job!!

[lliam]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
Apples, oranges or bananas. The reason for some of these seemingly bizarre laws are for that countries domestic protection and the US should take a hint. The US has one of the largest trade deficits in the world. We buy more then we sell. The EU and China sell more then they buy. Many of the laws/restrictions on trade they have in place are to protect their domestic markets, trade surplus/shortage and consumers. The US would be smart to take a hint and try to drop our trade deficit by enacting some of our own rules. Free trade is dangerous, responsible trade is fair.

The EU has imposed trade sanctions on a series of US products on 1 March as a result of a long-lasting trade dispute over illegal US tax breaks. For over two years, the US has failed to bring its legislation in line with WTO rules. "The name of the game is not retaliation but compliance," said Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, adding that countermeasures will be lifted the day the US complies with WTO rules. In his recent trip to Washington, Lamy discussed this issue with the US administration. Progress could rapidly be achieved.

[lliam]

Here we go.

Microsoft has been fined a record £331 million/€ 497 million by the European Commission - a financial flea bite for the computer giant, but a big political and legal headache for chairman Bill Gates.

The cash penalty was accompanied by orders to dismantle Microsoft's sales monopoly by no longer making purchase of its Windows operating system conditional on buying the firm's Media Player program.

The company was accused of breaching EU competition rules by "bundling" its own software and other services with its Windows system.

That made it difficult for other software makers to compete - particularly as Microsoft withheld the technical codes which allowed Windows-based personal computers to work better with servers.

Microsoft said the information was its own intellectual property and that offering a complete package was part of its commercial strategy.

The strategy worked well - more than 90% of personal computers worldwide run on Microsoft software.

The ruling in Brussels followed a four-year investigation led by Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, who said: "It is essential to have a precedent which will establish clear principles for the future conduct of a company with such a strong, dominant position."

But the real battle has only just begun: Microsoft is appealing against the fine to the European Court of Justice and a final verdict could take five years.

Meanwhile, Microsoft will be seeking suspension of the Commission's order to start selling within 90 days a version of Windows without Media Player and to make available within 120 days the information other companies need to produce compatible rival server products.

Mr Gates is furious that the EU is interfering at all when Microsoft is already subject to anti-trust laws in America.

NOW, is this 'DICTATORSHIP' or WHAT!!!