OSNews

While I can't speak definitively for Europe... I can say that as an American who suffered through 8 years of "Bush II: The Nightmare Returns", I have some thoughts. The political climate, and just who happens to be in office, can make all the difference. I remember all too well watching my country do all sorts of things which shamed and embarrassed me. And watching it fail to do things that we *should* have been doing. It made me feel just a bit like the Borg-afied Jean-Luc Picard must have felt... his own body doing horrifying things against his will.

The world political climate has changed. (I would go so far as to say "greatly improved".) And of course, Europe is much better organized now than it was then. Impressively well organized, I should say. (And that's a sincere compliment.)


See above. ;-) You may recall that Microsoft's cavalry came riding into both the Executive and Legislative branches of American government at the critical moment, and the DOJ was suddenly hunky-dory with Microsoft and its behavior. (And this is one time that I might have opted to use M-DollarSign if OSNews software would let me. It would have been most appropriate.)

The EU may be late to the party. But the U.S. went AWOL when it mattered most, and has not yet returned to this issue. It's like "the morning after". Too many repercussions resulting from last night's behavior to deal with, and we haven't even had a chance to finish our morning coffee yet.

I see signs that the market is somewhat better now. But I don't think the market is anywhere near being out of the mudhole yet. And I'm glad that someone with muscle is willing to push.

Edited 2009-08-08 00:34 UTC

The appeals court threw out Jackson's remedy, dismissed him from the case for incompetence, and sent the case back to the lower court for the remedy phase to be retried under narrower guidelines. Under the new guidelines and before a genuine impartial judge, the DOJ knew that they wouldn't get anything like what Jackson ordered, so they and Microsoft settled. And that settlement set up a compliance regime, including both internal and external compliance committees, which give Microsoft clear guidelines as to what's OK and what isn't.* And while parts of that settlement expired as originally scheduled to in November 2007, other parts have been extended, as agreed to by both the DOJ and Microsoft (and the judge).

* The compliance regime set up in the DOJ/MS settlement differs from what goes on in the EU. The EU provides no guidelines whatsoever as to what's OK at any given time. Microsoft has asked the EC multiple times, "If we do so-and-so, is that OK?", and the EC says, "It's not up to us to say what's OK, it's up to you to be compliant with EU law." The only problem is that EU antitrust law has no guidelines so a company can never know what's OK and what isn't. The EU antitrust law is basically the EC's whim at any given moment. This is done intentionally, so that a company releases a product, THEN the EC comes in and says, "Ah-ha!! This product does so-and-so, which we don't like so here's a billion dollar fine." See, if the EC said told that company that the product would be in violation before the product was released, then the company would change the product accordingly, and deny the EC the opportunity to make a big public splash with a fine after the release of the product. The EC want so show that they are actually doing something, so they wait for the product to be released so that they can level their huge fines as a public show.

The US DOJ did not "go AWOL". They responded to the appeals court ruling and settled with Microsoft and set up a compliance regime that affords guidelines and due process. The EU never set up a rigourous compliance regime at all, but rather act on Nellie's whim. And even you seem to say that part of the EU's motivation is that they hated Bush (and I guess you maintain that they hate Obama for not renewing the case against Microsoft?). If the anti-America feeling that Bush engendered was/is part of the EU's motivation, then that shows even more that their case has been unjust.

Edited 2009-08-08 02:42 UTC

and she uses these show trial to show how tough she is or whatever. Same goes for the absurd fines that she levels. Those fines aren't about the money (well, not entirely), it's to show who's boss. And the EC has semi-dictatorial powers (no due process is given to the accused, guilt is declared without trials, etc), and she's using those semi-dictatorial powers for all their worth, in attempt to parlay her "wins" into the EU presidency. Naked ambition is all that this is about, period.

Honestly, Molly, I can't help but feel that this has gotten to be too personal an issue for you. While there might be room for debate on the actual issues... you too frequently want to make it an emotional thing. Particularly where Neelie Kroes is concerned.

Or maybe it's not personal. Maybe it's your job. I don't know. But I'm wondering, now, if perhaps Archie didn't get it right a long time ago.

Excuse me, but to my knowledge the EU commission tried for the better part of 4 years (!) to get Microsoft to release the SMB and AD network protocol specifications.
They started with smaller fines, and only when Microsoft refused to comply with EU regulations did they finally come into compliance.

Contrary to the USA political system, where effective measures of restoring the market to a healthy state became impossible after Microsoft started to give huge amounts of money to politicians, Neelie Kroes proved to be not buyable by money. And she showed Microsoft that a healthy market is the only way for Microsoft to stay in business and profitable in the EU.

Maybe Microsoft will give up the EU Market, once they are truly forced to give up their lock-in tactics with MS-Office, simply because they can get more money out of the rest of the markets in the world with their lock-in in place.