Member of EU Parliament asks if Microsoft should be excluded from public procurement

[Geoff]

Groklaw - Member of EU Parliament asks if Microsoft should be excluded from public procurement

 

On march 2004, the Commission adopted a decision declaring that Microsoft had seriously violated EU competition rules by abusing the dominant position in the software market, causing a huge damage both on competitors and consumers. On 17 September 2007, the Court of First Instance (CFI) rejected Microsoft's appeal (Case T-201/04). Microsoft has not appealed the CFI ruling, which can be deemed to have the force of res judicata. Following the 17 September 2007 judgment, the European Commission imposed on 27 February 2008 a substantial fine (899 million euros) on Microsoft for its non-compliance up until 22 October 2007 with its obligations under the Commission's March 2004 Decision to provide interoperability information on reasonable terms.

 

While Microsoft's behaviour had negative effects on millions of offices in companies and governments around the world, this fine for flouting the European competition law represents the highest amount ever imposed in fifty years of EC Competition law for abuse of dominant position. Furthermore, this fine follows a previous one of 280.5 million euros that was imposed in July 2006 essentially for the same reasons.

 

Pursuant to article 93 (b) & © of the Financial Regulation, which implements article 45 (2)© & (d) of Directive 2004/18/EC on public procurement, candidates or tenderers shall be excluded from participation in procurement procedures if: (b) they have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata; © they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify;

 

Considering that Microsoft continued to abuse its powerful market position after the Commission's March 2004 decision requiring it to change its practices, and given the fact that it is already the third time in four years that the Commission had to impose fines or penalty payment for non-compliance with a Commission decision, and bearing in mind that the 17 September 2007 CFI judgment has the force of res judicata, does the Commission consider that Article 93 (b) and © of Financial Regulation, read in conjunction with article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC, could be applied to Microsoft in this particular case and with regard to any ongoing or future public procurement procedure? If it is the case, could we therefore consider that Microsoft does not fulfill the conditions to participate in such public procurement procedure?

 

So if this gathers any steam, in theory, no new MS software for 5 years.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Geoff

[fafster]

Ouch. I better get some Linux SysAdmin training.

[Diello]

Jeez... MS are no saints, but the EU witch-hunt is getting a bit OTT...

[joe90bass]

Jeez... MS are no saints, but the EU witch-hunt is getting a bit OTT...

 

Agreed!

 

Is (s)he suggesting that public procurement will be stopped but private procurement (i.e. businesses) can continue?

 

Great for compatibility

[webman]

MS deserve whatever the EU throw at them.

[spc-rocket]

Jeez... MS are no saints, but the EU witch-hunt is getting a bit OTT...

 

Yeah I agree, they are dominant but this is getting too much. I woudl rather see better negotiated deals so public sector can buy MS software and also other software i.e. from Symantec, Sophos, Adobe etc so its affordable. I still think the £31.50 for MS Office is too much and would be better at around £15-20 mark, so if they want to hit them then get them to lower the prices especially Adobe who are just numpties when it come to the prices of their products.

[localzuk]

The rules are the rules. It isn't a witch-hunt if they are just following the same rules as everyone else...

[Diello]

The rules are the rules. It isn't a witch-hunt if they are just following the same rules as everyone else...

 

Funny - I don't see Ford, or BMW, going through the same process. "Ford, you need to hand over all the details and blueprints of how you make your cars to Vauxhall. They've not been as successful as you, so you must help them challenge you".

 

Yes - MS have done things wrong, yes, they can annoy the *@%# out of us at times - but there's a point at which it's no longer redressing any sort of balance, and just having a go at the clever kid.

 

You see it everywhere - Look at Ubuntu, once the darling of the Linux community, now it's so successful, you get the hardened Linux community members rubbishing it, saying it's Linux for wimps.

 

Are the same rules being applied however? I don't see BMW being put through anti-trust because you can buy their cars with SatNav. Surely you shouldn't be able to get SatNav with your car and should have to go out and buy a solution for that feature separately? ....................

[CyberNerd]

Funny - I don't see Ford, or BMW, going through the same process. "Ford, you need to hand over all the details and blueprints of how you make your cars to Vauxhall. They've not been as successful as you, so you must help them challenge you".

 

The car analogy doesn't work here, because car manufacturers do abide by standards - their measurements are made in millimeters that everybody can understand. In this case MS defined the 'standards' and made it so only their products will be able to sufficiently interact with each other. In theory you should be able to fit a third party wheel to a ford car - but I still cannot find any software that interacts with an exchange server to the level that MS products do - the EU essentially ruled that this is not because MS do it 'any better' than anyone else - but because MS have been going out of their way to prevent interaction as a way to block competition.

[cookie_monster]

It won't happen talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. It is however a serious bargaining chip there's no way MS will allow this to happen so the EU may get a result. They just need to keep the pressure on MS bit time.

 

Trust me i'm no mass MS fan but the whole of the EU not buying MS software just think how many third party companies that would be unintentionally affected, it could cost the the industry millions and leave the EU open to all sorts or legal action and all just to give MS the big V.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Look at Ubuntu, once the darling of the Linux community, now it's so successful, you get the hardened Linux community members rubbishing it, saying it's Linux for wimps

 

It's important to remember that it's these idiots that are holding back mass Linux adoption with their esoteric attitude.

Edited April 10, 2008 by cookie_monster

[webman]

Bodies affected would have little option than to upgrade to open source solutions for new installs. I don't really see that as a bad thing.

[Diello]

"They would have little option than to" - isn't that what got MS into trouble? Limiting choice based on an almost religious zealously? FOSS should be successful (or not) based on it's merits vs. the competition, not because people have been forced into it.

[cookie_monster]

As i say it would cost companies a fortune to 'just' quickly port their software over to an alternative platform especially smaller companies. I know a friend who works for a not so small company and it cost them a fortune and allot of time (years) to move their products from AS400 to Windows. A move like that could put them out of bussiness.

[webman]

Surely that's better than the vendor lock-in promoted by Microsoft? Many businesses use Microsoft simply because it's Microsoft, and aren't aware of the many benefits open platforms can provide.

[torledo]

As i say it would cost companies a fortune to 'just' quickly port their software over to an alternative platform especially smaller companies. I know a friend who works for a not so small company and it cost them a fortune and allot of time (years) to move their products from AS400 to Windows. A move like that could put them out of bussiness.

 

I bet they were shocked at the increased TCO of running a windows environment for their applications.....

 

they must be scratching their heads as to why they just didn't upgrade to the iseries instead and keep their apps on the latest incarnation of a rock solid, plonk-it-in-the-corner-and-forget-about platform

[CyberNerd]

FOSS should be successful (or not) based on it's merits vs. the competition, not because people have been forced into it.

 

The fact that FOSS has been so successful in light of how MS have been behaving is testament to the merits of OpenSource. But this was never about opensource vs proprietary it has always been about *open Standards*.

 

Nobody is going to ban MS anytime soon, but If MS are forced into following open standards then this is good for everybody as it gives us all options of integrating cheaper and more suitable software into our networks.

[localzuk]

Funny - I don't see Ford, or BMW, going through the same process. "Ford, you need to hand over all the details and blueprints of how you make your cars to Vauxhall. They've not been as successful as you, so you must help them challenge you".

 

Last I checked, Ford and BMW weren't found guilty of abusing their monopolies - oh, that'd be because they aren't monopolies!

 

Yes - MS have done things wrong, yes, they can annoy the *@%# out of us at times - but there's a point at which it's no longer redressing any sort of balance, and just having a go at the clever kid.

 

You miss the point - the rules were there before MS broke the rules and as such they should be subject to them. Not doing that would simply reduce the overall effectiveness of the EU and EU court rulings!

 

You see it everywhere - Look at Ubuntu, once the darling of the Linux community, now it's so successful, you get the hardened Linux community members rubbishing it, saying it's Linux for wimps.

 

No, you get idiots who don't understand what is important to the mass market and just like to find fault in everything they look at. I've not seen any key players in the Linux world say Ubuntu is a bad thing.

 

Are the same rules being applied however? I don't see BMW being put through anti-trust because you can buy their cars with SatNav. Surely you shouldn't be able to get SatNav with your car and should have to go out and buy a solution for that feature separately? ....................

 

You can buy BMW's without SatNav too. They don't have a monopoly in the car market or the satnav market. Microsoft has a monopoly in both the OS world and the media player world and the latter is due to them illegally using their monopoly in the OS market.

 

The court didn't just come to their conclusions on a whim, the investigation was rather long and complex. As was the US case regarding internet explorer.

[cookie_monster]

@ torledo

 

They've found as allot of people do that windows runs very well (especially in small setups) the IBM kit was overkill for their needs and very expensive, the move to windows won them allot of new bussiness. When they started this move 5 years ago i suspect most of their small customers would of run a mile of they said it was based on a 'FREE' OS. This is the problem most small and medium bussiness that don't have the in house skills are afraid of free, weather this is misguided or not it's pretty much how it is and it takes a brave tec to stake their reputation with management by going against the grain especially if your team consists of 'just you'.

 

Though i will add they still have a soft spot for the IBM kit.

Edited April 10, 2008 by cookie_monster

[GrumbleDook]

Point of order required on this as in education MS do not act as the tendering company. They are a product provider in such that a company can use their software and technology as part of a solution but MS have not taken part in any tender.

 

This was in reaction to issues raised as far back as 1998 (I would have to check the exact dates but it was prior to W2K being released in beta) with schools wanting MS to come in and sort the school out ... the reaction was that MS could not ... but a company using MS software could. IIRC it was Ian Lynch telling me about it on UK.education.schools-it circa 2001.

 

This has further changed in light of schools being Microsoft Academies ... it is never MS that does this directly but educational companies that do it with MS products and support ... this has also been targeted as improper and the rules changed again.

 

Apple gave up one the Apple Distinguished School many years ago and when asked in 2005 if it would ever be brought back one Apple employee told me that there is no point, it would only get blocked in the same way the MS is getting blocked. It is better to have a partner company do stuff ... hence the apple solutions experts and apple distinguished educators.

 

As of yet I have not seen Sun challenged over anything or any other *nix provider, primarily due to lack of market share.

 

Should it come round in 10 years time that we are mainly on EduBuntu or using karoshi will we see the same attitude from the EU?

[Diello]

You can buy BMW's without SatNav too. They don't have a monopoly in the car market or the satnav market. Microsoft has a monopoly in both the OS world and the media player world and the latter is due to them illegally using their monopoly in the OS market.

 

A monopoly would mean there wasn't viable competition - OS: OSX, Linux, UNIX, Media Player: iTunes, Winamp. IIRC from the US IE case, it wasn't that there wasn't competition, it was the other companies griping that if users were provided with something "out of the box", they'd use that as it did the job, and not look at alternatives. Ubuntu comes with OOo as standard, part of the install, yet I can choose to install Abiword if I so choose.

 

Yes, I can choose not to have BMWs SatNav and buy a TomTom - I can choose to install Winamp.

 

What I'm saying is it's a fine line - I'm not great lover of MS, they've made a rod for their own backs, and if they'd decided not to be kids, and shared out their APIs properly etc., they'd have avoided all the trouble, and probably ended up making more profit in the long run, as 3rd parties could create better products for use on MS's platform.

 

What I object too is this demonising of MS as the anti-christ, all hail Linux. Reasoned debate of the pros/cons & how each provides viable solutions to system needs is what's needed, not OS fanaticism. The problem with Linux is still getting it out of niche uses & Linux advocates to the mainstream, and a lot of that is down to dissemination of information. e.g. I love my Nagios and NAS setups running on Debian - I recently toyed with the idea of Linux for one of our Music editing suites (15 PCs), but on looking at centralised updates, software deployment, profiles, restrictions, etc., I was left either at a mammoth configuration task, or in the case of centralised distribution of software/updates, not even being convinced if it was possible! There are probably solution to all of these, but even in this day-and-age of Linux adoption, even the simplest of sysadmin tasks are a nightmare to even find out about.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Diello

[torledo]

@diello - i don't know what would constitute a monopoly, but is it not the case that until quite recently ALL PC's shipped by OEM's came with a Microsoft Windows version preinstalled. If i'm wrong about that i apologise, but even if it's 99% it constitutes in effect years of collusion between Microsoft and the PC builders, this massive installed base has remained unchallenged for years and today, while i don't know the figures, i'd imagine that even if linux has taken a percentage point or two from microsoft in terms of PC's shipped with either OS then it's a drop in the ocean....and microsoft will contniue to be regulated like mad. So it should be really.

 

A better analogy would be to use BT.....it's been years since it was a state owned monopoly but it doesn't stop ofcom from heavily regulating aspects of their business. And it won't stop even if we have things like LLU and the regulator will continue to break BT's balls over things like operator access to 21CN - because even though BT are the ones spending 11 billion it's BT who have benefited from being the national telecommunicatons carrier, and BT won't be allowed to use the new and old bits of the infrastructure as they wish. Even if they've paid for the new bits themselves

 

Microsoft and BT have benefited from their monpolies and still do to a totally unbalanced extent. I can get my phone from someone other than BT but it's still going over BT's wires. Similarly i can install linux on my PC but it'll still be shipped with one of the seven Vista versions.

 

altough tbf i'm drifting, as this thread is about microsoft in education. And the previos EU rulings are seperate issues

Edited April 10, 2008 by torledo

[GrumbleDook]

It won't be shipped with windows if you buy a mac ;-)

 

/me runs for cover!

[CyberNerd]

What I object too is this demonising of MS as the anti-christ, all hail Linux. Reasoned debate of the pros/cons & how each provides viable solutions to system needs is what's needed, not OS fanaticism. The problem with Linux is still getting it out of niche uses & Linux advocates to the mainstream, and a lot of that is down to dissemination of information. e.g. I love my Nagios and NAS setups running on Debian - I recently toyed with the idea of Linux for one of our Music editing suites (15 PCs), but on looking at centralised updates, software deployment, profiles, restrictions, etc., I was left either at a mammoth configuration task, or in the case of centralised distribution of software/updates, not even being convinced if it was possible! There are probably solution to all of these, but even in this day-and-age of Linux adoption, even the simplest of sysadmin tasks are a nightmare to even find out about.

 

Diello,

 

a question - why can't you do automatic updates to your windows machines from your linuxs server, or apply a group policy to them? - this is the point you miss, you can't do it because MS intentionally write their software with obscure protocols that nothing else can interact with. This is why they were convicted, not because the EU are *nix fanbois.

[GrumbleDook]

Diello,

 

a question - why can't you do automatic updates to your windows machines from your linuxs server, or apply a group policy to them? - this is the point you miss, you can't do it because MS intentionally write their software with obscure protocols that nothing else can interact with. This is why they were convicted, not because the EU are *nix fanbois.

 

So do Apple ... it is only their lack of market share for the OS that stops this being an issue. If the market share changed would the EU attack Apple as hard?

[CyberNerd]

So do Apple ... it is only their lack of market share for the OS that stops this being an issue. If the market share changed would the EU attack Apple as hard?

 

If they abused their monopoly, then yes. yes they should.