Yesterday, the EU handed down the largest fine in their history, when they punished Intel to the tune of 1.5bn dollars for anti-competitive behaviour, only just stopping short of accusing the company of criminally improper conduct. In associated news, the EU have also been pursuing Microsoft through their court on similar charges for years. Even Apple, the junior partner in the computer business, have felt the sharp end of the court for its management of iTunes and the iPod. The European Union has come under a lot of criticism since its inception and evolution in the last four decades, and the U.S. media in particular are denouncing these measures as anti-capitalistic and even anti-American.
So what is the truth? Is the EU right to carry out these measures, or are podcasts such as TWiT and Cranky Geeks right to label this institution 'crackpot' and out of its remit?
Toanswer this question, we must cast our minds back to the late nineties, when the Clinton government first began to show an interest in the business dealings of Bill Gates. Their version of the Monopolies Commission soon found themselves out of their depth when faced with an aggressive Microsoft, who refused to change company policy beyond tiny, irrelevant accommodations. Bill Gates and Microsoft were in such a position financially (garnered from stamping their business practice down on an extremely nacent market fifteen years earlier), that they could effectively bring the American economy to a standstill if they so wished. Now, nobody knows what was said by Bill to Bill during that famous half-round of golf they shared in '98, but judging by the subsequent actions of both the American government and Microsoft in the ensuing years, one has to imagine that the Gates version had the upper-hand.
The Silicon Valley boys have had their way with the various governments around the world for a long time, without anyone appearing to take them on. Microsoft was allowed to attain a position in the computer OS market that was entirely unacceptable for the consumer. They effectively held absolute power over business systems, which, in turn, gave them majority power in business. They then abused this position time and time again, with code and license tweaks, proprietary technology and an extortionate discreet partnership with, yes, Intel. This situation only began to correct itself when Microsoft was challenged by the EU (among many other non-US governmental agencies) in the late nineties.
Have they stopped adopting bad practice? I'm afraid not. The best example of this is the most recent case, where Microsoft has bluffed and filibustered over removing Internet Explorer as an integral (note to scornful US podcasters: not 'bundled') element of the Windows OS. As many of these self-same podcasters are always keen to point out, the future of computing and even the OS seems to be on the browser. As is also often metioned, IE holds a large majority of users by dint of being integrated into the OS. But it is worse than this. Try uninstalling IE from your system. I assure you that it can be done, but only by jumping through a lot of hoops. And guess what? When you next try to apply an update or online maintenance procedure, you will need to install it right back on there, unless you really know what you are doing. Now, plenty of people have told me that OS X needs Safari installed to carry out the same procedures, but this is untrue. OS X merely requires the necessary components of WebKit (an open-source basis for Safari) to be there, not the browser itself.
So why is this important? Well, if the future of computing is on the browser (I would argue that the present of computing is on the browser and has been for 3 or 4 years), then it follows that whomever has control of the browser market will have a firm grip on the future development of this arena. Such a company could then manipulate this situation to give itself an economic advantage, something which Microsoft has shown itself as not averse to in the past. Microsoft has only recently taken steps to bring web-compliance to its browser, coincidentally at the same time it has been attacked by the EU for anti-competitive behaviour with IE. Funny that. Oh, and there is also the small matter of engine revenue from Google, Yahoo et al, which whilst only a drop in the ocean for Microsoft, at the hundreds of millions of dollars is a significant consideration by the likes of Opera or new startups. It is telling that Microsoft never questions the legitimacy of the actions of the EU, merely the extent of the application of the law (whilst, presumably 'seeding' US tech journos with the anti-EU guff at the same time). Microsoft often refers to developers on its Windows platform as 'partners'. Well Microsoft, Opera is your partner. Mozilla is your partner too. If you released a compelling alternative to Photoshop and integrated it into Windows with no way to uninstall, Adobe would have your balls for breakfast and you know it.
Apple and the music industry were poisoning the well for other competitors in the online music industry by applying Digital Rights Management to lock purchases to their iPod device, thus ensuring that customers with a lot of investment in the service would be forced to purchase another iPod when their present device became unserviceable. There is a lot to say about the music industry in all of this (like how they get to do whatever they like without governmental intervention (in fact with governmental SUPPORT)), but as far as Apple was concerned, the EU (and in particular the French government) were justified when they went after them. It is interesting to note that when Apple lifted the DRM, not one of the many U.S. podcasts I listen to mentioned the EUs role in this victory.
Now don't get me wrong. I love the U.S.A. and I am a particular fan of her media, especially podcasts. But the sheer arrogance shown to the EU by the likes of Paul Therrott, Leo LaPorte, John Dvorak etc. is inexcusable. The EU has a lot to answer for: it is a costly, over subscribed, unfocused shambles at times. Like an overbearing aunty they tried to take away our British sausage, currency and Prawn Cocktail crisps. But despite the histrionic right-wing British press and the scoffing Americans (as well as our own resentful government), it has achieved many great things in its short history, especially in the area of European human rights, where it has offered some protection from our own rampaging government. And because it is an aunty rather than a father or mother, it has no agenda where big corporate is concerned. Whilst its individual members are subject to corruption directly proportionate to its component personnel, the quasi-unelected EU has nothing to lose or gain by taking issue with the big boys. Unlike the US or even the UK, it receives nothing directly from these companies, save the general well-being of its constituent countries. Long may it continue.
