Be careful what you ask for... you might just get it
Nine months after the Commission ruled that Microsoft should produce a version of Windows without a bundled-in media player, the European Court of First Instance backed up the request.
Microsoft raced off to comply, and after a temporary problem where changes that it made to Windows had the unforeseen consequences of preventing rival players from working properly. [Microsoft: "How were we to know that deleting the files would stop it from working?"], the media player-free Windows was unveiled.
Microsoft bravely bore the disappointment of not being able to name the product, "Reduced Media Edition" — instead being asked by the Commission to call it Windows XP N — and equally bravely bore the disappointment that no-one wanted to buy Windows XP N.
When Windows XP N was released in June, the four largest PC vendors — Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens — said they had no firm plans to install Windows XP N, citing a lack of customer demand. "Give it time," said the Commission. "Don't jump to conclusions."
UK retail chain PC World also said it wouldn't be stocking Windows XP N because it was the same price as the standard version of XP but with less features, and therefore represented worse value to customers. Almost six months after Windows XP N was released, major PC vendors and PC World still have no plans to sell the product. But, the Commission has still got what it asked for — a version of Windows without a bundled media player. Nobody said anything about it having to sell.
Server interoperability ping pong
The Commission also asked Microsoft to produce documentation on the server protocols needed for interoperability. The first version of the documentation was denounced by Samba co-founder Jeremy Allison for charging "monstrous" royalties. Microsoft and monstrous in the same sentence, what a travesty!
The EC came up with a similar, but more tactfully worded complaint, rejecting the proposed licence for its unjustifiably high royalty fees and its exclusion of open source vendors, among other things.
Microsoft generously offered to cut the licence fees, but said it couldn't allow open source vendors to release the source code of products created using the licence because it would impact the "confidentiality of Microsoft's intellectual property". It then started another lawsuit, claiming that the EC was violating its intellectual property rights by requesting that the server protocol information can be used in open source projects.
In the second version of the licence, Microsoft proudly proclaimed that it was offering some server interoperability information free of charge. But an open source consultancy that evaluated this licence said the information offered free was already available and in some cases incorrect. Surely they must have been mistaken though.
Where do we go from here?
Microsoft was granted a hearing in March, which was its final chance to argue why the Commission shouldn't fine it up to $2.4m a day for not complying with the original antitrust ruling. The European Commission is now analysing the information that Microsoft presented at the hearing, and may decide in the next few weeks to fine Microsoft.
But analysts say the prospect of fines is less of a worry for the company, than the risk of another antitrust case against Windows Vista. It looks like the antitrust case against Microsoft could end up dragging on for a few years yet.
Talkback
This isn't news but opinion/editorial and should not be in this section of your publication.
I want to know more facts - especially how the EC seeks to design prodicts of successful IT companies. I want to know why Microsoft's competitors "cry" to regulators, and the affect that has on their shareholders. I want to see illustrated real consumer harm, not theory or opinion, as a result of the EC's five-plus year search for a problem to hamstring the giant.
This piece is journaltorialism and should be read with those glasses on.