Microsoft complies to EU demands

Author: Phil Cogar
Published: 23rd October 2007
Comments (3) Stumble
The big boys at Microsoft surely aren't happy right now. The company won't receive nearly as much money as it would like to for licensing agreements.

The big boys at Microsoft surely aren't happy right now. The company won't receive nearly as much money as it would like to for licensing agreements.

Microsoft has finally thrown in the towel in the fight against the European Union's antitrust demands. Having already paid the £346 million fine and released Windows XP N, a copy of Windows XP that shipped without Windows Media Player, the software giant had difficulty complying with the licensing demands that were imposed upon it.

After facing a £2 million a day fine for not complying though, Microsoft has finally come to an agreement with the European Commission.

Microsoft has developed two licensing models that the EC has finally agreed with. The first model will hold a £7,000 royalty rate and give companies access to Windows Server interoperability information without giving a license for patents that Microsoft deems unnecessary.

The second will give companies access to those patents not covered in the first in exchange for 0.4 percent of the product revenue. Originally, Microsoft wanted 5.95 percent but the EC disagreed with that.

"These measures will ensure that Microsoft's competitors in the work group server market, including those following the open-source business model, will have access to the interoperability information on reasonable terms which will in turn lead to more competition and innovation in this market," the European Commission said in a statement.

The EC will continue monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the antitrust findings but for now, considers the company to be in full compliance.

Do you view Microsoft as the big bad bully that should be brought to its knees or were the demands put forth by the EC ridiculous? Leave your thoughts over in the forums.
Newsletter

Register for the bit-tech newsletter to receive the latest news and reviews in your inbox.



Quote Anakha 23rd October 2007, 17:03
I never "Grokked" the need for XP N. After all, who's buying it? And while it is true that XP has Media Player in it (As has every version of Windows since 3.0!), there is absolutely nothing stopping you installing a different player and using that instead (Winamp, iTunes, Foobar2000, MPC, QuickTime, Real, I could go on...). What next, Adobe suing because Microsoft includes Paint? oO.o suing because Wordpad is included? DOpus suing because Explorer is included?

TBH, I think the RealPlayer suit was totally without merit. They wanted a regulatory way to support their failing sales, because the free competition (WMP/Windows Streaming Services) was (and still is) better than their pay-for product (RealPlayer Gold/RealServer G2).

It would have been pretty stupid for MS to have released Win95 with the Weezer and GoodTimes videos on the CD without a way to play them. And it is pretty stupid to demand a company remove something that's always been a part of the OS (Like I said, since Windows 3.0, possibly earlier).

Just IMHO, but there it is.
Quote DXR_13KE 24th October 2007, 00:33
why does linux and osx come with media player and no one sues them? LOL
Quote UncertainGod 24th October 2007, 06:59
Linux doesn't, the distro's do. Besides they normally come with quite a few you can choose from. As for OSX, well apple are next in the cross hairs of the EU.

I'm surprised M$ have given up so soon, and this isn't really the court case that should have hurt them. It's a complete joke that they get let off for unfair competition practices but get caught for bloody media player.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Corsair HX1000W Power Supply


Affordable hosting at TSOhost
Stats: 0.064 seconds