[Sussex] 'nuff said

[Geoff Teale]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 15:26, steve at dobson.org wrote:
> Geoff and all

Hey Steve,  good to see you posting again!

> 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.

The EU should be trying to discourage crime by making the penalties
exceed the gains (Antitrust cases AFAIK don't have a fixed penalty
system, which is why this is so up in the air.  Any western country that
finds a company guilty of Monopolistic practises should be looking for
ultimate punishment.  For a capitalist national a breech of the fair
rules of trade, especially one that undermines the key mechanisms of the
market is the civil law equivalent of mass genocide.  That Microsoft
survived this in the US is testament to two things:

1/ 
They successfully managed to discredit Judge Jackson because he stupidly
commented on the case to the media.

2/ 
The proceedings that followed happened under the stewardship of the
present US government who feel that is acceptable to risk peoples lives
in Iraq for oil and sell of the infrastructure of the country to US
contractor; to destroy America's national parks for oil; to destroy the
Florida coastline (America's biggest tourist resort) for oil; to not
accept the result of an election and seize power through highly suspect
court proceedings (probably for oil) and to approve multi-million dollar
tax cuts that only benefit people who have enough money to own an oil
company.  In that context letting large companies get away with crimes
against free-trade is a no-brainer.

As for the EU punishment, well the profits Microsoft have made over the
last 10-15 years are huge.  It may be hard to say how different these
profits would have been if Microsoft had acted within the law, but it is
likely that the true figure would be in terms of hundreds of billions of
dollars

> >  - 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.

Yes, but the issue is _choice_ and being forced to make one rather than
just using a default, or actively making it hard for the users to use a
competitors product.

> >  - give proprietary access to Microsoft software.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Force them to publish API's/Source so that competitors have the same
access to the platform as Microsoft do.

> >  - 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.

I think that the security by obscurity idea is well established as being
"bunk and hokum".

> > ... 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?

When we truly separate the costs?  Maybe £100-£200 cheaper.  It is
likely that Windows licenses will become more expensive as a result (as
OEM sales is one of two profitable Microsoft divisions).

> > 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?

This is exactly the action that Israel has taken for government
agencies.  There is no need to ban support by third parties - only
further sales of MS products and services.  I don't see it happening,
but it is necessary to prescribe such a penalty to enforce compliance. 
Microsoft has a record of ignoring court decisions and paying the fines
- the threat has to be something more than a fine!

> 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 :-(

Microsoft is already the expensive option - especially with the new
licensing regime.  As far as the law is concerned, well there is no
defined punishment - Anti-trust cases are like war-crimes tribunals. 
Microsoft will argue (as they did in the states) that punishment will be
damaging to them and their customers - the whole point _is_ to damage
them and make it harder for people to use them as a supplier - they are
to be punished for the ultimate commercial crime, the price will have to
be high.

> > 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.  :-/

Anglo-American relations are a good thing - to confuse my metaphores
totally I have a Frank Zappa quote that explains why we need to change
the nature of that relationship:

"Remember, bending over and kneeling are very different things"

> 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.

No.. but the labour party (like the tories before them) have a very
unhealthy relationship with big business, and the idea that Bill Gates
gets a knighthood for "creating employment" is a joke to anyone with
even the most basic grasp on the economics of a monopoly.  As has been
noted by many people this is more about the Labour party gearing up for
the next election.

> >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.

What you might say is that we have much more experience of Empire than
the US does....   I of course couldn't possibly comment ;)

> 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.

The US is unlikely to stamp on Microsoft so long as it is one of the
largest funders of both major political parties.

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

Hallelujah to that brother ;)

See you tonight!

-- 
GJT 
gteale at cmedltd.com 

QOTD:
	"I used to be lost in the shuffle, now I just shuffle along with
	the lost."