dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3633

FF4m3
@verizon.net

FF4m3

Anon

FSFE & Samba Lawuit - MS Has To Pay $1.1 Billion Fine

Microsoft has to pay €860 million EU fine:

The General Court of the European Union has made a small reduction in the fine that Microsoft has to pay for its abuse of its dominant market position and refusal to provide interoperability documentation.

The 1998 case, brought by the Free Software Foundation Europe [FSFE] and the Samba Team and assisted by SIIA, ECIS, IBM, Red Hat and Oracle, was being appealed by Microsoft, which wanted a 2008 ruling and fine to be annulled and to have its costs paid by the Commission and others.

Instead, it has been ordered to pay 95% of the commission's costs and 80% of the FSFE, Samba Team and the other intervenor's costs. The Associated Press reports that the penalty for non-compliance with a 2004 order has been trimmed by €39 million to €860 million (about $1.1 billion). Microsoft was initially fined €497 million in 2004, then penalised €280 million in 2006 for non-compliance and again, another €899 million in 2008.

The FSFE's President, Karsten Gerloff, said "The European Commission was right in being tough on Microsoft. We have worked hard to support the Commission in this case, and are extremely proud of the victory we've achieved."

Microsoft said it was "disappointed with the Court's ruling," though it had already made provision for the fines and now has no outstanding issues with the EU Commission. Microsoft has not said whether it plans to appeal to the European Court of Justice, the highest court in Europe. The full judgement can be read on InfoCuria, the archive of Court of Justice case law.

European court upholds most of Microsoft fine:

A European court on Wednesday upheld most of a massive fine levied against Microsoft by the European Commission's competition watchdog, closing a case against the software giant that began in 1998.

In an appeals ruling, the General Court of the European Union rejected Microsoft Corp.'s request to dismiss the fine levied in 2008, but did trim it by (EURO)39 million to (EURO)860 million ($1.1 billion). Counting two earlier fines, the case has wound up costing Microsoft a grand total of (EURO)1.64 billion [$2.1 Billion].

Counting two earlier fines, the case has wound up costing Microsoft a grand total of (EURO)1.64 billion.

That's the most ever resulting from a single antitrust case in Europe, though in 2009 Intel Corp. was hit with the largest single fine, (EURO)1.09 billion.

The court in Luxembourg said its decision "essentially upholds the Commission's decision and rejects all the arguments put forward by Microsoft in support of annulment."

The (EURO)860 million fine is a "penalty for noncompliance" with the watchdog's 2004 order for Microsoft to make computer programming code available that would allow competitors' products to interface properly with Microsoft's server software.

Microsoft did so, but at a price the Commission said was so exorbitant it amounted to not complying.

The court upheld that finding, but said Microsoft deserved a small break because of a letter the Commission sent in 2005 saying the company didn't have to freely distribute code that wasn't its own and was freely available elsewhere. That letter gave Microsoft some room to think it was okay to continue acting the way it had until 2004, and should have been "taken into account in determining the gravity of the conduct found to be unlawful," the written decision said.

The Commission's top regulator Joaquin Almunia said the judgment "fully vindicates" his office's action against Microsoft and "brought significant benefits to users."

"A range of innovative products that would otherwise not have seen the light of day were introduced on the market," thanks to the Commission, he said.

Microsoft was less enthusiastic.

"Although the General Court slightly reduced the fine, we are disappointed with the Court's ruling," the company said in a statement.

Microsoft was initially fined (EURO)497 million along with the 2004 order, then it was penalized another (EURO)280.5 million for noncompliance in 2006, and then another (EURO)899 million in 2008.

Most notably in the 2009 deal, Microsoft ended an investigation into allegedly abusive practices for bundling its Internet Explorer web browser along with its operating systems. Microsoft agreed to instead offer customers a range of browsers to choose from.

Many observers say companies such as Apple Inc., Google and Microsoft are increasingly acting as "patent trolls," using the legal and regulatory systems as tools to thwart competitors as part of their wider struggle for market share.

Almunia said in February "the Commission will continue to keep a close eye on the behavior of all market players in the sector, particularly the increasingly strategic use of patents."

FF4m3

FF4m3

Anon

More from Groklaw:

CompTIA and ACT have to pay their own costs for intervening on Microsoft's behalf, "and those incurred by the Commission in connection with their intervention".

Carlo Piana, the lawyer who successfully represented Samba and FSFE, now has an article explaining the decision in detail.


rexbinary
MOD King
Premium Member
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX

rexbinary to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
Did the Samba team ever gain anything of value out of the SMB specifications that Microsoft was ordered to hand over?
Razzy
join:2012-06-21

Razzy to FF4m3

Member

to FF4m3
Wow, um wow... that's just stupid lawsuit there. I thought the Apple vs Samsung was worse but this takes the cake. I don't get these lawsuits - pointless.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to rexbinary

Premium Member

to rexbinary
I would say so. I work in that space, though not with Samba code, and the specifications have changed the nature of the game considerably. No more guesswork - the specs are good, and there are conformance tests available.

I would guess that SMB2 got implemented in Samba 'direct from spec'.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to FF4m3

Member

to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :
Microsoft has to pay €860 million EU fine:
quote:
The General Court of the European Union has made a small reduction in the fine that Microsoft has to pay for its abuse of its dominant market position and refusal to provide interoperability documentation.

Almunia said in February "the Commission will continue to keep a close eye on the behavior of all market players in the sector, particularly the increasingly strategic use of patents."

Fantastic! Now can we hand out a pentalty for being a major PITA and failure to comply, sort of like trebling, but QUADRIZLLIONING it! How about a general fine for being a burden on the court or something.

Why is that the EU/UK and most of the rest of the planent get that IP, trademark etc. are ILLS UPON THE WORLD (not just in technology, but all forms!) and need to go! ! !

Another ruling from the EU that stifles the idiocy that is occuring in the US... There is some what of a smarting of the judiciary in the US with the Java case and the judge telling crapple and Big M to go play nice in the sandbox!

But then the wheels fall off with the blocking of the Samsung tablet.... if there was any tablet I would buy its that one! Your right I wouldn't even consider anything from crapple to begin with! Theres a reason I am using Samsung Android phones.
said by FF4m3 :
CompTIA and ACT have to pay their own costs for intervening on Microsoft's behalf, "and those incurred by the Commission in connection with their intervention".
CompTIA don't get me started on this bunch! These are the biggest hurdles to Linux adoption on the planet and its no surprise they stuck their nose in it ( I am sure at the behest of ms!). These people are the ones offering those A+,Network+, Security+ etc. certifications and they are so !*()@&$!(*!(*! )!(* ms oriented AND BEHIND THE TIMES! Memorizing what IRQ and I/O ports from the 80's for COM and LPT ports... seriously on a modern OS ie: LInux its not important! You'd have to dig up a landfill to find serial cards and printer port cards that had to have manually set I/O and IRQ, and even then you don't need to !)(@*$(!*$) memorize them for a stupid test. And now they found they needed a gravy train so you have to recert, versus before it was good for life. CompTIA pays only lip service to Linux certs and it based on a program from another cert anyway... and good luck finding some one who offers the program! Most are so far up ms's butt with their brown nosing.... gawd... how do you stand the smell and the taste!

I am so glad they got smacked to pay up for their nonsense.. I wish there was a way to quadrizlize their costs too!
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
The real headline of course is "fine on Microsoft reduced by 39 million euros". i.e., it's not as bad as originally judged.

But that wouldn't sound nearly as "hurrah for our side", would it?

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

1 edit

Steve to TuxRaiderPen2

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

I am so glad they got smacked to pay up for their nonsense.. I wish there was a way to quadrizlize their costs too!

I think it's great how you come right out and say that open source can't compete with Microsoft on its own, and how it needs Microsoft's help to do it.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

The real headline of course is "fine on Microsoft reduced by 39 million euros". i.e., it's not as bad as originally judged.

But that wouldn't sound nearly as "hurrah for our side", would it?

I thought one of the blurbs I read yesterday mentioned it might have to do with a lower overall value of Microsoft or something like that.

TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen

Member

said by firephoto:

I thought one of the blurbs I read yesterday mentioned it might have to do with a lower overall value of Microsoft or something like that.

Could be. I'm sure it's probably based on some percentage of worth, or a valuation judgement of the total fine that can be imposed, like "up to x amount", and the judges can rule on a monetary amount that fits a number of conditions; # of non-compliance incidents, total number of accumulated fines etc...

I don't know, but that number is nothing to sneeze at regardless.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

said by firephoto:

I thought one of the blurbs I read yesterday mentioned it might have to do with a lower overall value of Microsoft or something like that.

If you remember the source, you should forever list them in the "non-credible" section of your life.
said by TuxRaiderPen:

Could be.

Can't be. This was an appeal decision on Microsoft's filing that the fine was incorrect as whole. There is no "up-to"...

The reduction was due to delay of compliance instructions, but levied a "reduction" instead of a "removal" as common sense should have been employed as well. Either way, the fine as judged included a longer span of time than what the higher court deemed was inclusive due to delays and miscommunications (screw-ups) BY THE COURT.
said by csmonitor.com :

The court upheld that finding, but said Microsoft deserved a small break because of a letter the Commission sent in 2005 saying the company didn't have to freely distribute code that wasn't its own and was freely available elsewhere. That letter gave Microsoft some room to think it was okay to continue acting the way it had until 2004, and should have been "taken into account in determining the gravity of the conduct found to be unlawful," the written decision said. Source

said by Carlo Piana, Council for Free Software Foundation :

Why reduced fines?

Final point, people could wonder why the 39 millions slash to the 899 million fine? Not exactly peanuts per se, and something it made the whole judicial challenge valuable, although entirely negligible in the overall case and even less an important dent in Microsoft's cash.

Overall, the Court said Microsoft ought to know by itself what reasonable and non discriminatory should mean. They were late providing the information, until the information were prepared, they could not offer them, thus they could not be in compliance. After that, it was upon them to propose the conditions, both in monetary (the price) and in legal terms (the conditions attached to the license). The Commission could only say "yes" "no" and "coming close, but not quite yet". But in case the Commission mislead Microsoft, delay or uncertainty caused by this could not be taken into account in the assessment of the fines.

There was a letter dated 1 June 2005, by which Microsoft could in theory have inferred that it could put in place, for a certain period of time, certain practice in the light of the pending case on the merits. It could have been reasonable that the Commission could avoid to demand full enforcement the decision in the event the same was overturned and the effects needed to be rolled back. Hence the fine should be proportionally reduced. The Court says the letter was sufficiently clear and the overall effect of it in Microsoft's appraisal is vague and speculative (see paragraph 229), but the fact must be kept into consideration to some, limited, extent. Thus the 39 million. Source


FF4m3
@bhn.net

FF4m3 to firephoto

Anon

to firephoto
said by firephoto:

I thought one of the blurbs I read yesterday mentioned it might have to do with a lower overall value of Microsoft or something like that.

Incorrect according to European court upholds most of Microsoft fine:

The court upheld that finding, but said Microsoft deserved a small break because of a letter the Commission sent in 2005 saying the company didn't have to freely distribute code that wasn't its own and was freely available elsewhere. That letter gave Microsoft some room to think it was okay to continue acting the way it had until 2004, and should have been "taken into account in determining the gravity of the conduct found to be unlawful," the written decision said.

FF4m3

FF4m3 to TuxRaiderPen2

Anon

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

Why is that the EU/UK and most of the rest of the planent get that IP, trademark etc. are ILLS UPON THE WORLD...

Another ruling from the EU that stifles the idiocy that is occuring in the US...

Agreed.
FF4m3

FF4m3 to dave

Anon

to dave
said by dave:

The real headline of course is "fine on Microsoft reduced by 39 million euros". i.e., it's not as bad as originally judged.

But that wouldn't sound nearly as "hurrah for our side", would it?

Our side??? Which side is that, dave?

Anyway, how's this one dave, dave?:

Counting two earlier fines, the case has wound up costing Microsoft a [reduced] grand total of [ONLY] (EURO)1.64 billion [US $2.05 billion].


TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen to markofmayhem

Member

to markofmayhem
That makes sense now, I can't imagine that Microsoft would be so willfully non-compliant, but then again, they took advantage of that to bring up the appeal to throw everything out, and that didn't work.

"sufficiently clear" now I suppose.

FF4m3
@bhn.net

FF4m3 to FF4m3

Anon

to FF4m3
Microsoft Loses EC Appeal By Maureen O'Gara:

The EC calculated Microsoft was in breach of its order for 488 days, which is where the "periodic penalty payment" comes from.

The General Court threw out all of Microsoft's arguments about the fine being over the top and unjustified.

Microsoft said nothing about taking its appeal to Court of Justice, Europe's top court, and it may not because it wants something out of the EC.

The General Court's decision is generally seen as strengthening the regulator's hand in its ongoing investigations of Google, Motorola Mobility and Samsung.

Microsoft complained to the EC about Google, which only has a few days left to resolve the case the EC has been building against it for abusing its dominance in search. It could theoretically nail Google for 10% of its annual global revenues, a fine the EC has never levied but Microsoft would love to see happen.

Microsoft remains the only company ever fined for non-compliance.

FF4m3

FF4m3 to FF4m3

Anon

to FF4m3
Key dates in EU antitrust action against Microsoft:

Here’s how the case developed...


firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

Microsoft Loses EC Appeal By Maureen O'Gara:

The EC calculated Microsoft was in breach of its order for 488 days, which is where the "periodic penalty payment" comes from.

»www.nytimes.com/2012/06/ ··· tml?_r=1

But the court reduced the penalty marginally as the commission had failed to take into proper account terms concerning the timing of distribution of certain products by open source developers.

dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

Our side??? Which side is that, dave?

The side normally in evidence in this forum, which is "whatever is opposed to Microsoft".

(I'm not disputing whether Microsoft deserved to get socked with a fine, merely commenting on the reportage).

FF4m3
@bhn.net

FF4m3

Anon

said by dave:

said by FF4m3 :

Our side??? Which side is that, dave?

The side normally in evidence in this forum, which is "whatever is opposed to Microsoft".

(I'm not disputing whether Microsoft deserved to get socked with a fine, merely commenting on the reportage).

Whatever you say, dave. Sorry that your feelings are bruised.

In case you missed it, nobody on this forum (All Things Unix) found MS guilty of anything. It was the EU.

The story is big news around the world (as initially reported by the Associated Press) and has nothing to do with sides (as you call it). I posted the story here because it involves the FSFE, Samba, etc.

Next time I'll censor posting things that aren't on what you deem to be your/MS side.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

I don't have 'a side', I'm a go-between.

FF4m3
@bhn.net

FF4m3 to firephoto

Anon

to firephoto
said by firephoto:

said by FF4m3 :

Microsoft Loses EC Appeal By Maureen O'Gara:

The EC calculated Microsoft was in breach of its order for 488 days, which is where the "periodic penalty payment" comes from.

»www.nytimes.com/2012/06/ ··· tml?_r=1

But the court reduced the penalty marginally as the commission had failed to take into proper account terms concerning the timing of distribution of certain products by open source developers.

From the actual JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

The Commission states that, for the 488 days covered by the contested decision...

European court upholds most of Microsoft fine:

The court upheld that finding, but said Microsoft deserved a small break because of a letter the Commission sent in 2005 saying the company didn't have to freely distribute code that wasn't its own and was freely available elsewhere. That letter gave Microsoft some room to think it was okay to continue acting the way it had until 2004, and should have been "taken into account in determining the gravity of the conduct found to be unlawful," the written decision said.

I don't believe that the articles are in disagreement.
Or are they?

howardfine
join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

howardfine to FF4m3

Member

to FF4m3
fwiw, on another board we had a discussion about "secure boot" and the fact that other browsers can not be installed on ARM systems. I filed an anti-trust complaint with the Justice Department and emailed my Congressman. It seems Microsoft is back to their old ways ever since coming off US Federal oversight a year and a half ago.

To date, I've gotten three replies. One from the Antitrust division acknowledging my complaint was passed on. A second from the guy who was directly involved with the US complaint against Microsoft the last time. And a third from someone in my Congressman's office who was very much aware of all this and stated people there have expressed concerns about this already.

FF4m3
@bhn.net

FF4m3

Anon

said by howardfine:

I filed an anti-trust complaint with...

To date, I've gotten three replies.

Good for you. Very interesting.

Could you possibly continue to keep us updated on your progress?
FF4m3

FF4m3 to FF4m3

Anon

to FF4m3
A few more details -

[From CNN Money:

The lion's share of the financial penalties came because of Microsoft's "noncompliance" with those rulings.

Microsoft has nearly $60 billion in cash on hand and has already paid the fine, but it appealed in hopes of getting its money refunded.

"We are disappointed with the Court's ruling," Microsoft said Wednesday in a written statement.

The company emphasized that it is back on good terms with European antitrust regulators, saying: "In 2009 Microsoft entered into a broad understanding with the Commission that resolved its competition law concerns."

From Fox News:

The charges imposed by the European Commission were related to an antitrust regulation passed in 2004 that called for Microsoft to provide rivals enough information to design products that could run on its Windows PC operating system.

At the time, Bill Gates lashed out against the fees, saying that providing competitors such information would give them the ability to “castrate” his new operating system.

Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft's failure to have the ruling overturned potentially sets the stage for what could be a series of disappointing rulings in appeals cases heading forward.


firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

European court upholds most of Microsoft fine:

I don't believe that the articles are in disagreement.
Or are they?

They seem to agree. perhaps the open source parts were distributed also by microsoft but not exclusively? If that's the case it's probably a really good thing because it always seems like the little errors that get the big ones turned over.

GILXA1226
MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH

1 recommendation

GILXA1226 to howardfine

MVM

to howardfine
said by howardfine:

fwiw, on another board we had a discussion about "secure boot" and the fact that other browsers can not be installed on ARM systems. I filed an anti-trust complaint with the Justice Department and emailed my Congressman. It seems Microsoft is back to their old ways ever since coming off US Federal oversight a year and a half ago.

To date, I've gotten three replies. One from the Antitrust division acknowledging my complaint was passed on. A second from the guy who was directly involved with the US complaint against Microsoft the last time. And a third from someone in my Congressman's office who was very much aware of all this and stated people there have expressed concerns about this already.

Just out of curiosity, have you done the same against Apple for iOS?

TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen

Member

said by GILXA1226:

Just out of curiosity, have you done the same against Apple for iOS?

Good Point.

»www.pcmag.com/article2/0 ··· 7,00.asp

howardfine
join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO

1 edit

1 recommendation

howardfine to GILXA1226

Member

to GILXA1226
iOS is not a monopoly on anything. Windows is a monopoly on the desktop. Hence, the difference and something I'm still amazed few people seem to get despite almost 20 years of the US and EC bringing charges against Microsoft.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by howardfine:

iOS is not a monopoly on anything.

Oh you mean you can take an iPad and install Linux on it? Neat!