EU - tough on software companies, weak on terrorist states..

The EU takes on Microsoft, closes eyes to Iran

from JoeUser Forums

This past week the EU put another $357 million fine on Microsoft over anti-trust issues. This is on top of the previous $300+ million fine and the on-going $2+ million per day ongoing fine.  When it comes to dealing with the global threat posed by American software giant, Microsoft, the EU is quite brave.

Meanwhile, Europe heads towards year 4 of completely unproductive negotiations with Iran, a country that has made it clear that they are pushing to have nuclear weapons.  Iran, as you may recall, has publicly promised to annihilate Israel in a ball of fire and whose missiles are likely able to reach Europe.

Luckily for Iran, they are not bundling a media player with their nuclear program or else the EU might then finally take the threat seriously.

Neelie Kroes, the "competition" commissioner for the European Union, apparently earned her nickname "Nickel Neelie" because she's tough in the same way as the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher -- at least that's what pundits are saying.  Really? REALLY?

No, I don't see the similarity. One was a leader in the war against terrorist forces, tyranny, and oppression around the world even when it was unpopular.  The other is a beareucrat who is sticking it to a foreign software company for reasons I doubt she fully grasps in a move that is very popular with "the people".

Kroes claims that what Microsoft has to do to comply with the ruling is "crystal clear".  Microsoft disagrees.  I would be interested in the "crystal clear" camp to come forward and demonstrate that clarity. As a software developer, I find the EU's demands to be vague in the extreme. You can read the official document here.

For example, the ruling demands that Microsoft "disclose complete and accurate interface documentation" so that their cmopetitors can achieve "full interoperability" with Windows PCs and servers.  What the hell is "interface documentation"? What exactly is the official excuse of its competitors in not being able to work with Windows PCs and servers? 

Tiny software developer Stardock, where I work, has managed to create software that seamlessly extends the feature set of Windows as if it's part of the OS.  Heck, we have software that actually can alter the Windows GUI -- a pretty low level part of the OS -- to look like whatever we want. And we did that without "interface documentation" let alone source code or any other special help. 

The only aspect of the ruling that seems clear is that Microsoft has to provide OEMs a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.  But even that is vague if you're a software developer. Does that just mean the player app or the underlying codecs and libraries that are relied on by thousands of programs?

My point isn't to make Microsoft out to be an angel. They're not. They've been quite ruthless over the years.  But it strikes me as absurd to see the court jump on Microsoft with massive fines while playing footsie with nations like Iran.  Heck, the EU had a lot more patience with Saddam Hussein -- a decade of UN security counsel resolutions -- and still didn't want to do anything particularly strong.

From an outsider's point of view, it just strikes me as ludicrious to see how quick the EU can muster significant sanctions against a computer software company but demand "patience" if the threat against them is actually, you know, real.

Kroes writes:

I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.

Spoken like a true non-technical person. It takes two to, ahem, interoperate. I suspect that there are plenty of people at Microsoft scratching their heads wondering "What more do these people want? Do we have to actually code up the software used by our competitors for them, hand it to them and provide a developer to sit there and answer CS 101 questions?"

How about answer this question: What specifically is the problem that these unnamed competitors are having? What specifically do they need in order to interoperate?  If the answer includes "source code" then they need to start hiring software developers who have training in...software development.

Lest someone think I'm some sort of Microsoft fanboy, I spent the first several years of my career as an OS/2 developer. I saw some pretty unsavory tactics used by Microsoft to win the OS market. If the EU (or US courts for that matter) had gotten involved then, they could have made specific requirements that would have made sense not just to lay people but software developers as well (such as "You can't charge an OEM $6 to bundle Windows for Workgroups but then charge IBM $20.50 for every WinOS2 license used in OS/2."). 

But the EU isn't doing that. They are basically asking Microsoft, after the fact, to magically make its competitors more effective and at some point, the competitors have to step up and...start competing.  And by levying such massive sanctions, it only brings into stark relief how weak the EU is on real tyranny, oppression, and danger in the world.  The whole situation would appear a little less ridiculous if, for instance, the EU could muster up some sanctions against say Iran.  The Iron lady would certainly support that. 

microsoft
12,941 views 66 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
No surprise, the cowards know Microsoft isn't going to plant a bomb under their bed.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi -

Long time (back to OS/2 days) Stardock user, long time expat (US in Germany).

It's not just the moral cowardice. It also has to do with retribution against MSFT for having the nerve to create an industry where they have the market power and not companies like Bull or Nixdorf. Never heard of them?

There's a reason. Neither was able to transition from the mainframe model of business, and while Bull survives on heavy government subsidies, Nixdorf, once THE premier German computer maker, has disappeared: it was first bought by Siemens and then subsumed entirely.

Plain and simple retribution. It's not too late for either the US or the EU government to do a straight single price model (along your completely accurate take on OEM and WinOS pricing), but the chances of this happening when retribution is much more satsifying is very unlikely...

John
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Meanwhile, Europe heads towards year 4 of completely unproductive negotiations with Iran..."

As opposed to America's very successful policy on Iran? If you are referring to the diplomatic tactic (backed by George W. Bush I might add) then you are grossly misinformed that this is "weak".

It is all very easy for armchair generals to call for force, and sanctions etc. Another war would not be in the interests of the region or the US. If you think a war is a good idea then here is your gun and your tin hat, see you on the front line.

Sanctions would merely further join the government to the people of Iran, it would be merely jumping into the propaganda net. This anti European article is ignorant and misinformed. The current approach is backed wholeheartledly by the US. Perhaps Mr Bush is weak on terrorist states?
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Perhaps Mr Bush is weak on terrorist states?


Please define "weak".

So far I have seen a lot of American lives spent trying to relieve the world of lunatics like "Bin Laden".

The last I heard, the bombs dropped and bullets shot are anything but weak.

Are you referring to a political avenue, such as that recently taken by the U.N. council towards North Korea (of which Bush is a member), who thinks it is perfectly fine to launch missles towards a neighboring country (that would be Japan)?

Does anyone truly believe that these terrorists and/or countries that are developing nuclear weapons have the self control not to USE THEM?

Don't get me wrong, I do not think highly of some of the decisions made by President Bush, but I have no belief that the terrorist's have some sort of self control or respect for others lives.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"recently taken by the U.N. council towards North Korea (of which Bush is a member)"

This is exactly my point, EU & UN are interchangeable on this site. The so called "weakness" of the Europeans often heavily involves America too.

The fact is that there is very little America can do about terrorism, the stick doesn't work and neither does the carrot. But any US government can never admit this to the people so it has to swagger around the world blaming terrorism on those damn European pansies 'if only they were as tough as us'. Attack Iran and terrorism will flourish there as it has done in Iraq.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ryan - It's pretty unussual for a European to assert US foreign policy as "weak".

But let's assume it is weak -- the difference is that the US (and Japan and South Korea and other nations with competitive technology economies) don't advocate aggressive sanctions against corporations while tip toeing around dangerous regimes who are doing far worse.

Tell me - which is a bigger threat to the average European? A nuclear Iran or Windows Vista coming with Media player.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"which is a bigger threat to the average European? A nuclear Iran or Windows Vista coming with Media player."

The two come in totally different categories, which is why the EU has various different policies to deal with different issues. The US might like to try this, it is called government.

"It's pretty unussual for a European to assert US foreign policy as "weak". "

Only if you thing constant militarism is a sign of a nations' strength. The White House is only opening back up diplomatic channels because Bush is such a weakened president.

I think Churchill was right, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. That is why I chuckled when I saw the Bush/Putin press conference at the G8. Bush got up on his high horse and pontificated on democracy in Russia, and Putin wittily stated that Russia did not want the kind of democracy they have in Iraq.

The serious point this quip makes is that the US has no right to hold others up on dealing with international problems or indeed fostering democracy, US foreign policy has been a complete failure in the Middle East.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, and European policy has been soooo successful.
Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top
The White House is only opening back up diplomatic channels because Bush is such a weakened president.


I believe that diplomatic channels have been opened, in the case of North Korea, because that is the consensus of the U.N. members on the best way to approach the issue.

As for dealing with terrorism, if you think that not doing anything, or trying to "talk" to the terrorist leaders (who are all hiding, BTW) would actually stop them from developing weapons of mass destruction - you might want to think about the reality of what a person (or group of people) with no respect for human rights will do when they get mad and have weapons of mass destruction to use.

I'm thinking - "attack and hide".
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The two come in totally different categories, which is why the EU has various different policies to deal with different issues. The US might like to try this, it is called government.


Way to dodge the question.

Governments are set up to protect its citizens and the interests of said persons. The EU has plainly stated that its interest lies in 'free' money that is extorted from American companies like Microsoft, NOT in defending its citizens from a rogue state with a crackpot for a leader.

WMP's bundled with Windows cause only an imagined threat to Europe's citizens. WMD's (Nukes) from Iran on the other hand are a much more 'tangible' threat.

The White House is only opening back up diplomatic channels because Bush is such a weakened president.


And a 'strong' president would do what? Come grovelling at Iran's doorstep like the EU has been doing? "Please, oh pretty please stop your nuke program." What a joke.
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Very well put, Brad....I'm with you 100% on this one, and not because I'm pro U.s, a MS fanboy or anti-EU, but simply because the EU is manufacturing problems rather than dealing with real and more important issues.

Frankly, I find the EU's stance against Microsoft offensive, better still, repugnant, when human lives take second place to materialism and piddling arguments over software, but what more could you expect from self-serving politicians/pencil pushing bureaucrats.

I've had some pretty horrendous experiences with morally bankrupt pollies and their lackies in recent times, and given that the world is seeing a downward spiralling of moral values and ethics amongst our political leaders, the only future for mankind I can see is in the sewers, while politicians reside in luxurious ivory towers looking down upon us with complete disregard. Third world countries? Forget the term, for we'll all be living in one if we don't stand up and be counted now....

Think I'm over dramatising, okay! However, remaining complacent will not only bring about but exacerbate it. Having technology forging ahead will mean nothing when the conditions for our families and loved ones will have deteriorated, undermined by politicians who see us as inconsequential underlings and superfluous, cannon fodder, so to speak. When there's too many of us floating around in the sewers they created beneath their ivory towers, they'll just create another war to cull that which has become an abomination before their eyes.

The Bible and Nostradamus spoke of this centuries ago, and the political world is leading us right into it, having learned nothing.

Prophet starkers has spoken! ***rant off***
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

"which is a bigger threat to the average European? A nuclear Iran or Windows Vista coming with Media player."

The two come in totally different categories, which is why the EU has various different policies to deal with different issues. The US might like to try this, it is called government.

"It's pretty unussual for a European to assert US foreign policy as "weak". "

Only if you thing constant militarism is a sign of a nations' strength. The White House is only opening back up diplomatic channels because Bush is such a weakened president.

I think Churchill was right, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. That is why I chuckled when I saw the Bush/Putin press conference at the G8. Bush got up on his high horse and pontificated on democracy in Russia, and Putin wittily stated that Russia did not want the kind of democracy they have in Iraq.

The serious point this quip makes is that the US has no right to hold others up on dealing with international problems or indeed fostering democracy, US foreign policy has been a complete failure in the Middle East.

Oh I dunno, it took the US longer to get democracy established effectively in Europe than it has so far in Iraq.  In the 2 years since the invasion, Iraq has an elected government -- better that Germany and France were doing after World War II.  From the American point of view, US policy has gone pretty well - Saddam is gone, replaced with a democratically elected government and at a casualty cost of less than what say France suffered in 30 seconds of battle in World War I.  Or put another way, 2,500 American soldiers (that's counting the removal of Saddam and the last years of stabilization) has achieved far more than the typical 2 or 3 yards of ground that tens of thousands of Europeans died to capture in its various recent wars. 

When some European says "US foreign policy in the middle east has been a disaster" one has to wonder what exactly their metric of success is then.  Can any continental European power point to something they've done that has achieved as much with so little lost life for their side in their entire histories?  Seriously. 2,500 American soldiers in exchange for Saddam Hussein removed. Democratically elected government in its place, and no -- ZERO US assets attacked since 9/11.   Or is failure defined as there being instability in Iraq? Wow. Instability in the middle east. Shocking.

Of course, then again, France seems to have its own problem with Muslim violence so perhaps the US foreign policy in Europe to foster democracy has been a failure as well?

I prefer the US's approach in which force/sanctions is used in proportion to the means necessary to achieve an objective as opposed to the EU's policy of use force based on what it think it can get away with without getting hurt.  If the EU was putting sanctions on Iran or North Korea for the threat they pose AND sanctioning Microsoft for hundreds of millions of dollars I wouldn't have written this blog.  But what we have is the EU being "tough" on a computer software company while having endless patience with terrorist states trying to get nuclear weapons.  The EU has become the Nelson Muntz of diplomacy - pick on those who won't do anything back and cower away from those that might.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Talking about apples and oranges here, Brad. Or in other words: drivel.

There is a big difference between economic policies and political ones. The EU started out as the European ECONOMIC Union, and at its heart, that is still what it is. Its main power is an economic one. So with regards to Microsoft the only question is whether the EU is tougher on them than on other (European) companies. And no, they are not. The fines might be higher in this case, but so is Microsoft. The antitrust department of the EU is very active, in many sectors. And given the tendency in EU countries to protect their own industries, they have to.

So far the apples. Then the oranges. The EU doesn't have the authority to act on behalve of all countries regarding foreign policies. That is, every country can have its own foreign policy. Of course they try to come up with common ones. But just as the G8 can't do it, why would the EU be able? The interests are too different. So blaming the EU for not being able to assert proper pressure on other countries is basically blaming the EU for not having become one single country yet. I for one am not to sure we are ready for that. Not having had one single war between union members is a wonder enough for me, given Europes history in this regard.
Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'll leave the discussions about Iran/Iraq to other forums. But the economic issues that you raise are right to the point. While there are exceptions, I do not see most of Europe as a source for creative ideas that improve the economic and social well being of its citizens. It is easy to point to socalled progressive health and welfare benefits but these all depend upon a work ethic and social cohesiveness that is rapidly dying in countries like France, Germany, Holland, and others. A smaller and smaller group is working to support the liefstyles of many who have NEVER had a job. Look at what the unemployment rates are for Western European countries. Their economies are static and restrictive. It is not about what can be done. It is what cannot be done.

Microsoft is a company that people love to hate. How easy it is to forget that it was less than a decade ago that most of the world really entered the computer age. With inflation most everywhere it is only the electronics/software industry that consistently sees better products at cheaper prices. Microsoft has taken a myriad of ideas that were once impossible to communicate with one another and managed to merge them into several large packages. Sure, things aren't perfect but no one is being forced to use Microsoft or any of its products.

I am listening to music right now with WinAmp, a free software that only seems to get better over time. My desktop is a collection of skins mostly found on this site and for which I pay nothing. I use Irfan View to organize my pictures. Another free program. I burn my CDs with several different programs and none of them are from MS. My email does not rely on MS.

Where's the monopoly and abusive pricing in all of this? Where's the dead innovation and failure of new products? How about Europe with its refusal to accept that socialism does not work and government intervention in every aspect of a person's life only results in stagnation and eventual poverty for all but a small elite.

OK, I have to say something about Iran after all. Europe did nothing at all during the rise of Hitler or when it became obvious what was happening to the Jews. Europe did nothing at all when Bosnia was being rapped and torn apart by the Serbs. Europe has never done a damn thing to help Africa except sell evil dictators weapons in exchange for blood diamonds. No, the USA hasn't saved the world in a long time and certainly isn't doing so now. But at least someone is making an effort against the fanaticism that comes from radical Islam. The French just accepted that people in their own country were tourching thousands of cars a night and did nothing. With that kind of attitude it is clear what they plan on doing with the ideologues and insane elsewhere. And when the missles and bombs start falling they will proabably be demanding that the US bail them out once again.
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Are you lot mixing up the term for "Europe" and "European Union"? It' seems somwhat confusing to what you are refering to. Not all countries in Europe are part of the European Union.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The EU has become the Nelson Muntz of diplomacy - pick on those who won't do anything back and cower away from those that might."

Brad you are completely deranged with anti-European thought. You seem to think that the EU is the UN, as it has been stated the EU is a trading forum, not yet a fully fledged governing bloc. The 25 (soon 27) individual member states have seperate foreign policies. There is no European foreign policy on Iran as Europe is not yet a political union.

It is the UN, of which the US is a permanent member, which is following this course of diplomacy which the armchair generals term "weak". Get some knowledge before you write like you are a foreign policy expert. Mr Bush and Ms Rice are backers of the diplomatic approach, these two generally aren't considered Europeans.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Europe did nothing at all during the rise of Hitler or when it became obvious what was happening to the Jews. "

I can't believe this American re-writing of history (as usual). Perhaps you watched some hyper-patriotic Hollywood movie but America only entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan. Joseph Kennedy, US emissary to Britain at the time was a anti-semite and predicted the Nazis would be in Buckingham Palace within two weeks.

America was perfectly willing to live with Hitler while he conquered Europe so get off your high horse.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting article, and the comments even more so.
Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I take it that comments like "Europe is being weak on terrorist states" that the implication here is that the EU doesnt go to war over intelligence that is later proved to be wrong or have any WMD's been found ? Bear in mind all you US nuts the UK invaded Afganistan and Iraq with you and all of us in the UK are members of the EU too.........
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top
In the 2 years since the invasion, Iraq has an elected government


What good is a government that can't walk outside with out being shot?

From the American point of view, US policy has gone pretty well


This American begs to differ. Saddam is gone, but he's apparently the only reason Iraq wasn't in a civil war for all those years. Am I glad he's gone? Of course. But the cost of him leaving is worse than if he were still in power.

ZERO US assets attacked since 9/11


None of us know why there hasn't been an attack. It could be because they're hiding in caves, or it's because they're still planning something. I'd go with the latter. Even if Iraq is the reason we haven't been attacked, is Iraq less worthy of stability? Did tens, if not a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians deserve to be sacrificed to save the lives of a few thousand Americans? Is an American life worth more than an Iraqis?


As for the EU, I think they're completely misguided with Microsoft. As I've said before, the price of success shouldn't be punishment. But as some have said, I don't think they have as much to do with foreign policy as the UN, or other international organizations. It would be like America, Canada and Mexico declaring their stance on Iran or North Korea under the NAFTA banner.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I don't think they have as much to do with foreign policy as the UN, or other international organizations. It would be like America, Canada and Mexico declaring their stance on Iran or North Korea under the NAFTA banner."

Hear hear! Draginol seems to think the EU is a government. It is not in the same way that the Americas are not a government.
Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Hear hear! Draginol seems to think the EU is a government. It is not in the same way that the Americas are not a government.


That does not make sense. Are you saying they are not a government? (They are, just more of a confederation instead of a strong central one). Or are you saying that they are not like the American Government (in which case I would agree)?

Or are you saying the EU is like North America - just a bunch of governments with a common waterfront?
Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top
This American begs to differ. Saddam is gone, but he's apparently the only reason Iraq wasn't in a civil war for all those years. Am I glad he's gone? Of course. But the cost of him leaving is worse than if he were still in power.


Iraq is not in a civil war right now.  The media in this country would like it to be though.


None of us know why there hasn't been an attack. It could be because they're hiding in caves, or it's because they're still planning something. I'd go with the latter. Even if Iraq is the reason we haven't been attacked, is Iraq less worthy of stability? Did tens, if not a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians deserve to be sacrificed to save the lives of a few thousand Americans? Is an American life worth more than an Iraqis?


I'd say it's because we are actively seeking them out.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/the_miami_plot_editorial_.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07109951.htm

If you are so caring about Iraqi lives now, were you so caring when Saddam was gassing people, starving his own people so he can send payments to the U.N., and just torturing people for fun?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would say that maybe the EU would take the Microsoft fines and put them to good use in the middle-east, but knowing the EU and it's member states they'd just screw it up and wind up sending more money to the Palestinian cause so it would be used to buy yet more missiles to be fired into Israel.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
"That does not make sense. Are you saying they are not a government?"

The EU is not a government, it has no power to enforce any legislation over any of its members(members have the choice to sign up to laws), the EU is a trading bloc made up of several differents goverments. Member states make voluntary contributions to the EU budget, individual governments tax their citizens but the EU has no power to harmonise tax laws over any of the member states. Any member state can pull out at any time, and last year an European constitution was voted down by several member states, so the EU will remain a trading bloc for many years to come.

There is no United States of Europe, as yet.