Slashdot Mirror
EU May Fine Microsoft
Yokaze writes: "The Wall Street Journal reports about a leaked European Comission document, that suggests that the EU may fine MS for anti-competitive behaviour. The fine can be up to 10% of the annual revenue, or $2.5 billion and may include the demand to remove certain programs from Windows.
The report harshly criticized MS way of taking influence in the case, even speaking of trying to mislead the observers.
Regarding the report of the WSJ, European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said, that the case is still at a preliminary stage, since MS still has the right to defend itself at a hearing. Or in his own words: 'To speak of a fine when Microsoft has not yet disputed the Commission's preliminary findings both in fact and law -- as it it's right -- is premature.' Since the original is for subscribers only, take a look at Yahoo or the more detailed report from BBC News. Lastly with some different details a report from Heise in German."
I wonder if the threat of a big $$$ (er.. $EU) settlement will finally piss a few of the large MS stockholders into applying a little pressure on MS management to change tactics.
:) Then there's always Warren Buffet, but he's not likely to make much of a stink given that he's pretty much in lock-step with BillG himself.
Ermmm, most of the large stockholders are Microsoft executives, so I rather doubt it.
My journal has hot
babalfish translation of the German article
Microsoft threatens high punishment of the European Union trust guards
The European union could impose a high punishment in in August the officially initiated trust legal procedure against Microsoft and force the company to remove features from Windows. This comes out from a confidential document of the European Union commission, which is present the barrier Street journal. The US business paper reported that the commission in unusually sharp tone determines, Microsoft tried, the Ermittler in errs to lead and the procedure obstruct. From this reason a possible punishment will more highly fail, as if Microsoft would have cooperated. The European Union commission could impose a punishment, which amounts to 10 per cent of Microsofts year's turnover, that is 2.5 billion US Dollar.
The Ermittler of the European Union commission is the opinion that Microsoft abused its supremacy in illegal way at Windows and Office software, in order to become generally accepted in the fast growing market for Business and Internet software. Additionally Microsoft tried to displace audio and video often commodity of other manufacturers with the Windows Media Player quotes barrier the Street journal of the European Union paper. Additionally the commission determines, which the Redmonder its operating system Windows 2000 and other applications with intention would have arranged in such a way that these do not co-operate with software of the competitors. In the document the Ermittler suggests requiring modifications at the products in order to prevent such offences in the future.
Additionally the commission accessed Microsofts " abusive and discriminating license policy " on, as well as the refusal of thecompany to put interfaces for competitors openly. The criticism is not directed openly against the new Windows XP, this can however change.
The collecting main of 34 letters, in which Microsofts customers support the company in the procedure allegedly, analyses the commission as attempt, the procedure to obstruct. Many of these letters were written by Microsoft, in other cases knew the companies concerned not that their expression than evidence should serve, place the European Union Kommisssion firmly ( kav / c't)
I'll try my very best...
"The EU could fine Microsoft a large sum in the anti-trust case which officially started in August. They might force the company to remove features from Windows. A classified document of the Commission which the Wall Street Journal got it's hands on implies that. The US-American economy newspaper reports that the Commission was unusually harsh in noting that MS tried to mislead the investigators and obstrucing down the trial. Because of that, the possible fine will be higher than it would have been had MS cooperated. The Commission could issue a fine as large as 10% of Microsoft's annual income; that would be 2.5 billion USD.
The investigators of the EU-Commission are of the opinion that MS illegally used it's dominant position in regard to Windows- and Office-software, to gain the upper hand in the rapidly expanding market for business and Internet software.Furthermore, Microsoft tried to crowd out audio and video software of competing companies with its Windows Media Player, the Wall Street Journal quotes the EU document. The Commission notes that the Redmonders purposely designed their operating system Windows 2000 and other applications so they would not support the software of their competitors. In the document the investigators suggest changes in the products to hinder such offenses in the future.
"Furthermore, the Commission attacked Microsoft's 'abusive and discrimminating licensing politics' as well as the company's refusal to lay open interfaces to competitors. This criticism was not aimed at the new Windows XP, but that could change soon.
"The presentation of 34 letters, in which Microsoft's customers supposedly offer their support for the company in the trial is regarded as an attempt to hinder the trial. Many of these letters had been written by Microsoft itself, in other cases the concerned customers didn't know that their letters were intended as evidence [in Microsoft's trial], the Commission noted."
copyright Verlag Heinz Heise
I see your point. however, even though linux distros come with a whole pile of programs, it doesnt tie you into any particular one. you have a choice.
;)
with windows, you still have a choice to some degree, but it certainly is a lot more inconvenient than firing up, say, outlook express.
as for you running XP, each to their own i guess
For example:
"I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a government first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same government ? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the government , rule on this, instead of the government ? "
-Dennis
Microsoft's profits last year in its European, Middle East and Africa region:
4.8 Billion.
Microsoft's profits from two years ago in its European, Middle East and Africa region:
5.1 Billion.
This was the only region in which MS profits declined over this period.
Microsoft's Quarterly Reports
No, the executive branch does, the police.
But you have the right to appeal the decision at a court.
From the official site, more exactly from here.
So they don't enact law, but what is their task?
Among other: (same source)
Don't mix the European Commission (EC) with the European Council (EC).
It's no decision, neither an "objective statement" it's a "statement of objections". And Microsoft still has to explain its view.
Lastly they can still appeal the European Court of Justice
how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?
Well, since they've drawn their own conclusions, and not just reiterated Suns demands, it seams they have at least one.
You're surely a competitor of the free market, please explain to me how bundling of products helps you as a consumer?
Do you get more choices?
Lower prices?
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Microsoft: Republican party! Thank you for scratching our back. We'll give you $500,000,000 for the next election!
You see the problem? Personally I think prohibiting any corporation from making any political contribution would be in order but I also know that hell will freeze over before that happens.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>it seems the EU has an unfair legal system where the judges are the jury and the prosecution.
The European Comission is just the prosecution.
May I draw an analogy:
You're driving too fast.
A policeman stops you and fines you.
Now you can try to convince the policeman not to fine you ("it's an emergency").
Then he may still fine you or maybe let you go depending on his judgement.
Is the policeman, judge, jury and prosecution?
Somehow yes. But not really, because you still have the right to appeal to court.
Same with MS, there is still the European Court.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Check the Reg -
it has the details of the obstruction charge. Apparently they were writing letters from various companies in support of themselves and submitting them as evidence. This is misconduct of the grossest nature - here is an excerpt of an email I wrote a friend (I don't want to retype my point)
Look at the very last part. I've talked to you about this before... Microsoft has now been confirmed to have created misleading commentary and opinions in the following areas: Letters to congress, state officials (recently, in support of dropping the antitrust case); Random individuals writing opinion letters to various local papers (came out in the first antitrust investigation in the win 3.1 days), creating fony "trade groups" to lobby and publish opinions, and now they have been caught submitting false opinions from other companies. It really is the boy who cried wolf, you can't believe pro Microsoft (even deserved) information in any context because they have a history of buying reports and opinions in almost every context. This is a good trick if you can handle it, but it appears that it is going to backfire on MS.
Politics, Culture, Food?
Which is why most countries (or at least some) has laws that tell what a seller is allowed to make agreements on with the customer. Usually not allowing for example such things as "not having any liability" or "not guaranteeing a product works" or "not having any responsability for what it does". Such agreements or parts of agreements would be void. Thus it would not matter if you agree to them, sign papers or whatever since the alw forbids such agreements. Perhaps it IS allowed in some countries, I really don't know, but not in all for sure.