OSNews

The "law" in this case sucks because it's extremely vague, and it's enforced at Nellie's whim. The EC declarations of guilt don't even allow for due process, as the accused is not allowed to cross examine the accusers nor does the accused even have a right to examine all of the evidence. The EC used "secret" evidence in the network protocol proceedings (read "witch hunt"). Microsoft has never lost an actual trial wrt EU law. They've only "lost" the arbitrary proceedings of the EC, then appealed those declarations to the EU appeals court which rubberstamps the EC decisions because the appeals court doesn't have the power to review actual evidence, they only review whether if proper procedure was followed, and they've basically abdicated all authority to the EC. The Intel fine of 1.5 billion was absurd, and not based on Intel losing a trial, but based on arbitrary decision by Nellie and her flunkies.

See, here's the difference:
The US DOJ case was an actual trial. It was resolved by an actual settlement. That regime set up under that settlement has been in place with oversight committees, and relevant portions of that settlement have been extended as agreed to by both sides and OK'ed by an actual judge. That regime bears the stamp of legitimacy because due process was provided.

The EC "regimes", on the other hand, are completely arbitrary, based on whim, because there's no actual trial. So it's just, "Nellie declared Microsoft to be violating law by bundling IE in Windows 7 despite the fact that IE has been bundled in Windows for 13 years." Next, the inevitable fine is levied. Rinse and repeat. Oh, and there's no oversight committee by which Microsoft (or Intel, or any other of Nellie's targets) can submit designs and get approval or disapproval. The EC rejects such overtures with a "It's not up to us to say whether this design follows EU law (i.e. EC whim), it's up to you to follow EU law (i.e. EC whim). This is so the product based on the design in question will be actually released, so the the EC can levy their fines.

You're going to come back with the trite, "Microsoft must follow EU law, and if they don't like it, they can leave", making zero effort to examine if the law and/or the application of such is just. Of course, since you hate Microsoft, whether the law and application of it is actually just is the least of your concerns.

It's no wonder that the far right won the EU elections last week. I think it's a terrible development (hell, even the facist, racist, neo-Nazi British National Party won seats). But that's a reaction to the far left policies of the EU, of which Nellie's declarations are a perfect example. You talk of the EU simply applying law; will you feel the same way if these new right-wing members of EU parlaiment decide to apply neo-facist law? Will you be so unquestioning of EU law even under those circumstances?

It isn't vague at all. Not the tiniest bit.

Just try to build and run a TV station that sent out pictures that only one make of TV set could use ... oh, and you happen also to be the company that makes the TVs in question. See how far you get.

Try and become a car maker whose cars only run on petrol that only you sell, and can drive only on toll roads that you operate.

A free market economy REQUIRES that different manufacturers can make competing products that perform the same functions using common infrastructure and services.

This is what standards are for. It is basic. Fundamental. It is how the whole economy works.

In the case of web browsers, the standards are set by the W3C. There is a compliance test for standards that have been set and stable for about five years or so (or even longer for some) ... it is called acid3.

IE fails dismally. Microsoft have had over five years to get it right. The areas IE fails in are explicitly those areas covered by non-standard Silverlight functionality. Illegal behaviour. Clear as crystal.

In a web browser, either sell something that conforms to the standards, or sell nothing. Just like a TV broadcast station must, or a TV receiver manufacturer must. Same laws apply.

Edited 2009-06-12 05:30 UTC

Well - you DO know Neelie is a right wing party member, do you? She's coming from the VVD, This is the party that was the breeding ground and formal home ground of two of the most extreme right wing people that started a party in the Netherlands (PVV and TON).

So - all the talk about left wing tactics falls flat on the face here...

Edited 2009-06-12 05:34 UTC

Neelie Kroes is a right wing politician, with rather right-wing ideas in economy. The EU view is that a large, free market is desired, and the EU's task is to remove those obstacles. This includes national protectionism, but also monopolies.

IANAL, but as far as I can see, neither the law nor the principle guiding it is vague at all. On the contrary, I find it pretty clear.

And to act as if the process in the EU is arbitrary and there is no rule of law in Europe is just laughable and insulting. Microsoft is free to take its case to the courts, it did in several occasions and it lost. Why? Because MS broke the law.

And you shouldn't really comment on EU politics if you don't even know which party has Neelie Kroes belongs to, you don't know which parties have the majority in the EC and you don't even know what the role of the EU parliament is. You are just embarrassing yourself.