[Sussex] 'nuff said

[steve at dobson.org]

Geoff and all

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:04:14PM +0000, Geoff Teale wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:11, Iain Stevenson wrote:
> > ... I think they got this far in the US and then it all went horribly 
> > wrong.  Clearly a financial penalty isn't going to make much difference to 
> > Microsoft.  It'll be interesting to see if the EU has the balls to define 
> > some software based remedies - and then if our government feels it can 
> > impose these sanctions on its chum "Sir" Bill.
> 
> OK, well it's all up in the air right now, ...<snip>
>           ....  The lowest touted figure I've heard is 14 billion
> euros.  Bear in mind that Bill Gate's personal worth (which will be in
> no way affected) is estimated to be around $40 billion (and that the US$
> and the Euro are close to 1:1 ).  It's painful even for Microsoft.

I remember at one time there was talk of fining M$ $1,000,000 per day.
Given that that quarter M$'s profit (not revenue) was close to $380 millions
and included a right off of close to $300 millions I didn't see that fine as
being painful to M$.  This looks more like the EU is trying to make the fine
fit the offender not the crime.

> Furthermore there is a strong suggestion that there will be  restriction
> on Microsoft's products as well.  The most obvious suggestion is that
> Microsoft will be banned from selling products that:
> 
>  - integrate non-OS-core functionality (like a media player or a
> relational database) into the OS package.

I don't see this as a big problem.  With most people wired M$ could just
make it "free" to download from their sits.  Then it would be a uses choice.

>  - give proprietary access to Microsoft software.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

>  - lock out competitors through proprietary file formats, API's or
> communication protocols.

Opening up internal APIs would be a real step forward for competitors to 
M$ on M$ platforms.  It might also show the security holes in M$ internals.
If those holes are in the APIs then publishing the APIs could make the virus
writer's job easier.

> ... and there has been specific mention of banning Microsoft from there
> OEM license deals that have that require vendors to pay for a Windows
> license for every machine sold or restrict OEM vendors from installing
> there own choice of software (including bootloaders, OS's, browsers,
> media players, etc..).

A good thing.  It will make plain or non-Windows PCs easier to get.  I wonder
home much cheaper they'll be?

> Finally, underlying all this is the proposal that the remedy for any
> further breaches within the EU (or failure to pay up and comply) would
> be an outright ban on trading in the EU.

I can't see this happening.  Let's ignore the sails of new systems and just
look at the existing ones.  If M$ is banned from selling into EU what about
support?  Home many companies and Government depts. rely on support from M$?
I can't see an outright ban working.  How many M$ people would be out of a
job?

Better would be a TAX on M$ software and services directly, cause M$ to 
get priced out of the market.  If you remember before Linux Microsoft's
sales pitch was that they offered the best value for money software 
around.  But I don't think that the law would allow for this :-(

> The EU seems to be saying that they were pissed off with how the case
> worked out in the USA, and trying to send a message, not only to
> Microsoft, but to the USA as a whole, that the EU will not be pushed
> around by bully boys.  If this works out to be the case then I would
> suggest that it is a shining example of why the EU, for all it's faults
> is of ever increasing importance in the post cold-war era, and why our
> governments "kneel and suck" approach to Anglo-American relations is so
> incredibly dangerous for the average citizen of the UK. 

I agree and disagree with this at the same time.  :-/

While I do see that it is important that the EU does not just roll over
in the hope that the US will tickle its tummy I don't think that Blair
did "kneel and suck" to Bush.  I think a lot more when on behind closed
doors.  What we saw on TV was the "public" face of support.

>From what I've see on the News (not much I know) but things do seem to be
much better in the British controlled parts of Iraq now that the US bits.

Our forces have shown that they know "how to win the peace".  As these
concerns where, as far as I can tell, being talked about before the war
I now feel that there are many powerful people in the American Government
(not just the current administration) that have a much higher respect for
the UK than they did before.

As the USA has shown (by not having one), a consistent foreign policy is
a must.  Britain has always know that anything it does outside of its own
shores has an effect on everything else it does abroad.  Respect in one
area will lends support to other, unconnected areas.

If the EU had been more supportive of the US in the Iraq war then its
stance on Microsoft would have made the US look closer at its own house.  
As it is I think that the USA is less likely to stamp on M$ as long as
the UK Government courts M$ against the main feelings in the EU.

Steve

P.S. It's nice to be back in rant mode :-)
`