EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn

Well you can doubt that, that is your choice, but do you have any facts on your side, that are stronger than the fact that Windows is the OS most of the people around the world use? I can answer that for you - No! Because there are many factors that make an OS good, not just stability or open-source capabilities, for example. In the case of Windows this factor is ease-of-use, and judging by the numbers, most of the consumers consider this factor to be important!
By the way, you might get ideas that people don't choose Windows, they are forced to use it, because it comes pre-installed on their PC's, though I can say that that doesn't matter, because they can install a free Linux version on it, nevertheless, if they choose to do it!

Leonardo, there is the competitive order in the eu and everyone putting products on the market in the eu has to stay within these rules, microsoft broke them and has to pay for it now.

Well then, if these rules dictate that Microsoft has to provide the code for their product, then why doesn't the EU fine every software developer out there who is not providing THEIR code? Also, tell me exactly what rules Microsoft must follow in the case of Windows Media Player? This is the one thing that really drives me crazy - the EU says that Windows cannot be bundled together with Windows Media Player, but CAN be sold together with rival products! Where's the sense in that???

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a true MS fan, I'm just using common sense! And before you post comments about my arguments or Microsoft, try to put yourselves in Bill Gate's shoes. Imagine for just a second, that you create an OS. It becomes popular, millions of people start using it. You have worked quite hard to get it all done, then you create a Media Player to go along with your product for free. And you get SUED!! Would it seem normal if you were the one getting sued?

The thing is more about counter-monopoly legislation than about "morals" or whatever.

As Microsoft does have a quasi Monopoly (not matter for what reason they reached it),
the state has to enforce trust laws.
Monopolies can simply take higher prices than a "working" market. (monopolistic rent)
This is why the state has to enforce either a price on the monopolies revenues,
or implement anti-trust limitations.

Since Microsoft violated these anti-trust limitations they have to pay that fine.

The reason for Microsoft might be "un-competative" behavior, or simply that they
made the best running OS for the mass market. I does not really matter.
Monopoly is monopoly.
If Linux where the only OS on the market, beeing fully controlled by "Linus Industries", they would
be treated the same way.

I would agree with you if I would consider Microsoft a monopoly! There are many options for me, as a consumer, to choose - Linux, MacOS, etc. and many programs I can use, so I don't think Microsoft is a true monopoly. Think about it this way - if Microsoft was a true monopoly that could control everything, then they could set prices sky-high, right?? No, because if they did that, I and many more, would turn to Linux!
But I guess this subject needs a clear definition of the word "MONOPOLY"

At least Microsoft tries to be a monopoly.
Just look at the browser wars and especially the server market. There's reason to force Microsoft to make their server software open source.
And would you really turn to Linux? An OS where most of the games don't work, a lot of graphic cards and other hardware has compability issues? I guess you won't. And now think about WHY most hardware works on Windows but not on Linux.

Yes, I would turn to Linux, because if everyone started using Linux all of a sudden, then do you really think there would be no developers creating games for Linux? The reason most of the stuff works on Windows, is because it was made for Windows and that is because Windows is the OS most of the consumers use! The developers make software for the platform that would give them more profits!
But you also have to think, were the developers physically forced to create software for Windows? No, everyone has a choice. If you made a wrong one, don't blame other companies for that!

Wrong, there's no choice, there's only a market and nobody can survive with creating games for a platform that isn't widely used.

Also nobody will - all of sudden - change the OS because there's no software yet. You can't just say "friggin' Windows is to expensive. Now I'm using Linux".

Maybe there's software but then it's mostly open source... and here's the problem: it must be compatible to Microsoft's OS but the want you to pay a fee for information about their protocols.

Got that?

Well, someone here needs to learn a bit about business and how consumers choose their products! Every year, more and more consumers start using Linux as opposed to Windows! And every year, more and more software is being developed for the open-source OS! See the pattern? If that doesn't prove that everyone has a choice, then I don't know what will!
Let's think about a situation where Linux becomes more popular than Windows, because at these consumer rates and the fines being forced on Microsoft, it is possible! For what OS do you think the developers would start creating software? For what OS would people start creating games? The one that is more popular or less popular? Catch my drift?

EDIT: Also, I would like to know what OS are you all using? And I mean all of the people who posted here!

I still don't get it. Why must Microsoft remove their Media Player? There are free and commercial media players out there. Nothing in Windows prevents you from installing them. And why do they have to provide their source code for "server products"? The Wikipedia article only focusses on the Samba protocol. In particular MS was sued for making available the source code but not the specs- with source code and a network analyzer why do you need the specs ?

It really seems to me tha the EU overstepped its bounds here.

German article:

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,538189,00.html