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."

Comments

Put the fine to use

[0tim0]

Personally, I would be happy with a fine in the US -- if the fine could be used to support an open source consumer OS.

IOW, fine MS a billion or so dollars and use it to fund an (OSX-like) GUI for, say, linux (or FreeBSD, or whatever).

MS would gladly pay the money to get out of this mess. And it would be the only viable way (that I can think of) to actually have a real Windows alternative. Everybody wins.

I don't know if our courts are allowed to make creative punishments like that. But it probably could be a decent settlement.

--tim

Re:Put the fine to use

[SamBeckett]

Why exactly is it our (the USA) government's job to fund an alternative OS? If there were money to be made for an alternative OS, people would make the OS for the money...

But Microsoft is a monopoly you say... -- Exactly the point of the case.. Don't allow Microsoft to use their normal strong-arm tacticts (at the fear of further punishment, break-ups) so any and all competitors won't be crushed.

That is why I think any one who wants the government to force Microsoft to open Windows' source code is on crack. Well, that and another reason-- if we all agree that Windows sucks *ss, then why do we want the source code so bad?

Re:Put the fine to use

[DickBreath]

fine MS a billion or so dollars and use it to fund [open source alternative]

Others here have already said what a stupid idea this is.

So at the risk of being modded down as redundant, I'll just echo the same.

What a stupid idea it is to fine a lawbreaker and use the proceeds in an attempt to try and undo the irreperable harm the lawbreaker has caused with their criminal conduct. Stupid man.

The government should not be trying to take money from our poor tobacco companies to pay for health care costs caused by lung cancer. And it would be insane to try to use seized organized crime assets to fund law enforcement efforts. Where will this insanity end? Next you'll be telling me that we should use seized assets from terrorist organizations to help fund the war on terrorism.

Don't suggest such stupid ideas here. After all, this is slashdot. We must protect our corporations. If we were to fine Microsoft it would hopelessly plunge the world economy into a downward spiral from which it would never recover and would ultimately spell the doom of everyone on the planet. And the court or govenment has no business trying to fine anyone. Or taxes either.

Re:Put the fine to use

[dillon_rinker]

You need Geritol, because you have irony-poor blood.

Looking out or the people

[saridder]

I like the fact that at least some gov't agencies are looking out for what's best for the people, and not big business. Please take note America.

I think this will have a major impact on Microsoft's business practices here and overseas, as I really can't envision Microsoft making a EU compliant Windows sans IE, Windows Media, Chat, etc., for them and a bundled Windows for the rest of the world.

And it's a testament to the impact of globalizaton, and interesting to see how foreign government's can influence American businesses in such a major way.

Shame on the bush administraion for letting up on Microsoft. And for the record, I am a huge Microsoft fan, and believe they do make some superior products. Note I said "some". I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.

Re:Looking out or the people

[macsforever2001]

I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.

Which ones are you referring to?

• Embrace and Extend
• "Lobby" to get the politicians who support you elected
• Leverage one market with your monopoly in another
• Censorship
• If you can't beat them buy them

Re:Looking out or the people

[Chris Johnson]

Yes, absolutely. In future years students will learn, "These are some of the historical ways a trust can gain and wield absolute control over their market. Believe it or not, at one time the venture capitalists of the era actually would consult directly with Microsoft before investing in companies in the same field, for fear of giving money to something that Microsoft had targetted! These abuses led, through slow, painful, and rabidly opposed progress, to a fuller understanding of how a healthy market operates, and what the requirements are for running a system that lives up to the promise of capitalism. Ironically, at the time Microsoft strongly felt they epitomized capitalism, though in retrospect the system they were aiming towards was more characteristic of classic Soviet Union communism, with themselves as the central authorities."

You better believe people will be studying what Microsoft does. People study crimes, or diseases, too! You mustn't assume people will be studying Microsoft to _emulate_ them: for one, you can't. There's only one Microsoft and no room for another. Once we've straightened that out it will only be in a context where nobody else has such an easy, unopposed path to that kind of economic authority.

Business students will be studying Microsoft as an example of an unsustainable local profit maximum, kind of like a pyramid scheme. If conditions are right you can ride such a situation to the very top- at which point, you're damaging capitalism so badly that you can't continue, and you can't expand any further, and the best possible outcome is decline and fall. Screw things up and you're looking at a crash, instead. That is of _great_ interest to business students, particularly ones that seek long rewarding careers in business.

Europe is just out to get the States

[Anonymous Coward]

Not since the French banned the word "e-mail" has Europe seemed so anti-American.
Over the last six weeks, the European Union has given a big thumbs-down to a series of telecom and technology mergers driven by U.S.-based companies, from AOL-Time Warner to WorldCom and Sprint. Pointing to the global reach of these proposed deals, Mario Monti, the European competition commissioner, seems to have thrown down the gauntlet to a number of American companies with market-grabbing megamergers on their minds.

By far, the most effective strike was the ruling by the EU Competition Commission against WorldCom's proposed takeover of Sprint. Monti reasoned that yoking together the companies' significant Internet backbone holdings in Europe would give the merged entity so much power that it could effectively make decisions independent of both its competitors and its customers.

Late last week, WorldCom and Sprint formally withdrew all merger plans, officially burying any sort of union.

The EU's move to reject the deal has raised suspicions in the United States about what the Europeans are up to. Timing is a factor in the paranoia. The WorldCom-Sprint move comes on the heels of Brussels' June 19 announcement that it plans to launch a four-month investigation into the AOL-Time Warner deal. American misgivings increased when, barely a week after nixing the WorldCom-Sprint marriage, Monti prevented Microsoft from taking a controlling stake in British cable company Telewest Communications.

So, WorldCom-Sprint fell apart because of Monti and his gang, right? Not so fast.

The Union's ruling was hardly the dealbreaker. It occurred after the U.S. Justice Department had already said it would block the merger and after WorldCom and Sprint had formally withdrawn their application from the EU.

That said, suspicions of anti-Americanism persist nevertheless. After all, the EU hasn't demonstrated the same level of concern with similar deals involving European companies. It approved the merger of Mannesmann and Vodafone, reported to be the world's largest hostile takeover, once Mannesmann ditched its British mobile-phone operator, Orange. Of the dozen EU media and technology cases the Competition Commission has considered since June, four have focused on U.S. companies, and all four have led to extended investigations that blocked mergers, ultimately limiting U.S. control.

If there is a conspiracy afoot, plenty of observers in the United States are ready to root it out. The Washington Post even goes so far as to suggest Monti is trying to stymie U.S. companies to give European telecommunications and Internet companies a chance to catch up. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, hard-core "Ameriphobes" were happy to see Europe apparently standing up to U.S. globalization.

But between the posturing and the transatlantic bluster, the real story behind the U.S. companies' woes has less to do with favoritism than it does the regulatory obstacle course that huge U.S. and European deals will face in the future.

Rather than gunning for American companies, the EU's Competition Commission is more likely reacting to the size of the deals being brokered. The scale of many of the latest proposed mergers is unprecedented. The companies best positioned to pull off these megadeals right now just happen to be American. But that won't be true for long.

"I don't think there are any grounds to say the commission is out to get U.S. companies," says Olivier Kaiser, chair of the competition subcommittee for the American Chamber of Commerce's EU office. "The economy in general is American these days. It just happens to be those American companies that merge. The commission is just applying the rules, but applying them to bigger mergers."

Even Microsoft, which has come under European scrutiny twice in recent months, bears no grudge. It is currently facing an EU investigation for anticompetitive behavior in the packaging and sale of its Windows 98 software. And after consultation with the EU on the company's plans to invest in Telewest, Microsoft agreed to restructure the terms of the deal so it would not have a controlling interest.

Aim Gun, Shoot Foot...

[FatRatBastard]

Microsoft yet again (apparently) makes life more difficult for themselves. I'm no huge fan of the company, but even I think that they would have had a *much* better time in both the US trial and EU investigation if they didn't play so dirty (the whole video debacle at the US trial, the apparent obstruction of justice with the EU trial)

Monopoly cases are HARD to prove (and should be, as bad as a true monopoly can be I think the bar should be set very high when determining if a company is an abusive monopoly). While under investigation Intel played ball, didn't get into a "winning at all cost" mentality, consented to a few behavioral changes, and came out of it intact.

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.

Re:Aim Gun, Shoot Foot...

[Surak]

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.

Ermmm, most of the large stockholders are Microsoft executives, so I rather doubt it. :) 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.

Same thing, only different

[Red Aardvark House]

From the article:

It says that bundling new features into Windows and Windows server software "has a chilling effect on innovation and competition," according to the report.

That kind of wording is almost identical to that used by the companies which have complained to both Brussels and the US Justice Department about Microsoft's behaviour.

The DoJ and the EU say the same thing, but only the EU will have the resolve to see this through. Opposed to the DoJ's potential wristslpa, the EU starts with a monetary fine and then gets to the heart of the problem! Instead of trying to break up the company, just break up the software, get rid of the bundling which causes the interoperability with other software, allowing other software vendors to break into the MS Windows software market.

Good news, of a sort.

[RareHeintz]

How nice to know that somebody's law enforcement apparatus hasn't been bought.

Yet.

OK,
- B

Re:And yet you curse the DMCA?

[imadork]

I'd be happy if Microsoft had the huevos to not even bother to dispute the charges and just pulled all of its software out of the EU, flipping them the bird and leaving them to scramble for dry ground. It'd be a trial by fire for free software supporters, and I'd be very interested to see how it turns out.

We can only hope! Can you imagine all that money that used to go to MS licenses going instead to fund new software development because Microsoft is too arrogant to play nice, so it takes its ball and goes home? Something good would come out of that, I'm sure.

The first thing that would be done is every single MS proprietaty protocol will be reverse-engineered (and legally, too, at least for Europe!). Even if those of us in the U.S. wouldn't be able to use it legally, I'm sure it would be useful to us.

Re:And yet you curse the DMCA?

[PastaAnta]

We're quickly moving back to the old notion of city-states with their own conflicting sets of laws.

Au contraire! The EU has its foundation in removing barriers of trade (primarily in Europe of course..). And the borders are getting less visible for every year.

You may also say, that removing barriers of trade is all about securing a healthy competition on a larger scale in a smaller world. This is exactly the same reason for which you have laws against monopolies - to secure a healthy competition.

removing of programs

[osiris]

I certainly agree about the removal of programs from windows because if you look at it like this, when windows is installed, it installs media player, internet explorer, outlook express, and possibly a few other programs without much of a choice for which program you want to you. this is especially true for pre-installed versions of windows or newbie installs where they pretty much install everything.

the average user can not be bother to go and look for better/other software and is then tied in to using the default microsoft products. in a way this is supposed to be userfriendly, but you can see it as pushing out the competition. do you really think the avererage user would try and find a different email client, even after all the security alerts, when outlook express is just sitting there ready to use?

i think not.

of course, i would imagine that most slashdot'ers would have the sense to use what ever program they want for the task, but not the average joe. they'll use whatever is there, or most convinient to use.

this is pretty much the main reason why so many people use outlook/outlook express, because it's there!

doesnt give other apps much of a chance does it.

just my thoughts...

Odd stuff

[Otis_INF]

I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a commission first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same commission? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the EC and EU, rule on this, instead of the EC and/or EU?

Also, 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?

(mind you: next time these clueless morons are sueing a linux related company over what they think shouldn't be happening while they don't understand one single bit (pun intended))

Re:Odd stuff

[Yokaze]

May I ask, who fines you for speeding? A judge?
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.

"Although the Commission makes the proposals, all the major decisions on important legislation are taken by the ministers of the Member States in the Council of the European Union, in co-decision (or, in some cases, consultation) with the democratically elected European Parliament."

So they don't enact law, but what is their task?
Among other: (same source)

It acts as the guardian of the EU treaties to ensure that European legislation is applied correctly

As the Union's executive body, the Commission manages policies and negotiates international trade and cooperation agreements

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?

Re:Article

[motherhead]

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)

Im all for this...

[night_flyer]

Its not that I am Anti M$, but that they cant compete on the open market with their product... so they bundle it up with the OS...

would a person, if they had a choice pick windows media player over WinAmp if they had to do research and make a choice?

would they pick (or Buy) Outlook (Express) or would they choose (Free) Agent?

Would they buy windows compression over winzip?

Would they choose IE over Netscape?

How about Defrag over Norton Utilities? (even thought they use the same engine)

let the market decide... if they dont then let those greater than them (in power anyway) punish them...

Re:Im all for this...

[macpeep]

Let's see..

I'd pick IE over Netscape (or any other browser) ANY day of the week.

I'd pick MS Office over Star Office.

I'd pick Netscape over Outlook.

I'd pick WinZip over Windows CAB's.

I'd pick Visual C++ over Power++, Borland, GCC etc.

I'd pick WinAmp & QuickTime & Real over Windows Media Player.

I'd also - currently - pick Windows 2000 over Linux, for use both at home and at work.

It's not that easy. Microsoft has some good software. They have some bad software. They have some absolutely HORRIBLE software too..

Simply Shocked

[Alien54]

I am simply shocked that that anyone at MS would do anything like this. Given the outstanding and excellent quality of Microsoft's products, you would expect the same high standards of quality product to apply to the legal and marketing departments.

Wait, it looks like they do.

Why a fine? Solve the problem please!

[Stonehead]

Microsoft can easily buy a small country. A fine doesn't help Microsofts victims, doesn't help end users, doesn't fix any lawsuit. Microsoft will laugh its ass off. Those Europeans! (I'm Dutch myself..)
Why not tackle the problem itself? Microsoft is bundling its software to force competition out of the market. Why not force Microsoft to leave IE, Media Player, video editing software, hell even Minesweeper out of the default Windows package? (How much cheaper would it become?:)
There's the application barrier. Force it down! It should be possible to run Win32-applications in a legal way under any operating system. Yes, games too - DirectX should be opened or ported too.
Last but not least, Microsoft should cooperate with developers who struggle with Microsoft Word (or in general, OLE2) import/export filters and other proprietary Microsoft formats (NTFS, WMA, name it..)
If you think that I am radical, you probably don't have an idea of Microsofts power, budgets and market share. Microsoft is of course not evil itself. Their software looks and works actually pretty good, except for their obvious brain damage in security. Their management, their strategy and their habits of misusing their monopoly need a hard kick.

Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please!

[Syberghost]

My definition of a monopoly must be something else than yours.

That was the entire point.

I already am happily using Linux and BSD.

Which underscores my point that they're not a monopoly. Standard Oil was a monopoly; you couldn't buy your oil from anybody else, you didn't have a choice.

You can buy your PC OS from several different places. Microsoft is doing mean, nasty, awful things to get their market share, but preventing people from having a choice in toto is not among them.

Yes, some of the things they've done in the past (and may or may not be doing still, I have an opinion but I'm not gonna bet my ass on it in court) were illegal. The question is, should they have been illegal?

Should a court be able to decide, for instance, that Microsoft can't ship Internet Explorer in Windows? If they do, should it be legal for RedHat to include Mozilla and Lynx?

Do we want a court deciding that? Or does it make more sense in a free society that individuals make those decisions, and that companies be free to enter into contracts.

I'm not talking about click-through UCITA crap here, I'm talking about two marketting and legal teams sitting down and deciding on a contract. The fact that it's hard to compete for specific markets if you don't sign that contract doesn't make someone a monopoly, it makes them successful.

And, it's not illegal to be a monopoly in the US; it's only illegal to be a monopoly *AND* use that power to prevent other options from existing. Since RedHat has revenues in the millions, and Sun has revenues in the billions, it's clear that Microsoft doesn't even have a monopoly, just a very, very successful business built on a foundation of weak software, strong marketting, and duplicity. That's not illegal, nor should it be.

You can't legislate against offering people bad choices just because some people are stupid enough to take them.

The ONLY action the government should take against Microsoft's supposed monopoly is to stop buying their products. If the US government was constrained to use free software wherever possible, it would not only force changes at Microsoft, but it would spur free software development *AND* save the taxpayers money, both in the form of less taxes spent on computer software, *AND* lower costs of goods and services as businesses would see better free software choices themselves.

Documents would eventually have to be interchanged in an open format, so that businesses using Windows could transfer them to and from government entities, and that would force Microsoft to either document what they've got, or use something documented. If Microsoft could write a word processor around those formats that people still wanted to pay for, more power to 'em.

Re:Article

[Voidhobo]

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

Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europe)

[Baki]

I could imagine Microsoft threatening pulling out it's software, thinking it might scare Europe and have them come back at their knees.

Well, they might, just for short term tactics.
However such a move would create a shock in Europe, making everyone to realise how very dangerous the current situation is, being so dependant upon the software of a single (foreign) company.

Surely, this shock would initiate a big effort to get rid of this dangerous dependance and spell the end of MSFT software in Europe.

I can only hope they pull out their software or at least threaten to do it. It might finally open the eyes of many.

Corrupt politics in the US

[pubjames]

What I don't understand is, why do Americans seem to be so complacent about their corrupt legal and political system?

I'm not an American, and haven't spent much time there, so I'm only going by what I see and read on the web and newspapers. But it seems to me that a great number of Americans believe their politicians and law makers are highly influenced by the men with the money. In Europe, that kind of thing is seen as very corrupt and not worthy of a modern, democratic society. Frankly it is viewed as a bit backward and a sign of a democratic system that hasn't matured yet. Italy comes to mind as a country in Europe that has a similar reputation.

How is it that Americans are so convinced of the superiority of their country, say it is 'the land of the free', has a large number of intellectuals, etc, and yet don't seem to be worried about such a corrupt system?

This isn't a troll, and I'm not bashing America (both Europe and the US have their good and bad points), but I would like opinions about why Americans seem to have this blindspot.

Re:Corrupt politics in the US

[Koreantoast]

The problem isn't one that can easily be defined as right or wrong.

For one, the people with the money are not all rich businessmen representing massive American and foreign megacorporations. A huge chunk of that money comes from citizen-based interest groups known as PAC's (political action committees). In 2000, the top donor was not a corporation, but a labor union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who gave twice as much as Microsoft did that year. It should be noted that labor unions made up 6 of the top 10 contributors (AT&T, Microsoft, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs the other 4). Other notable groups include issue-based coalitions such as the NRA (the pro-firearms lobby). Any radical funding reforms would be extrememly dangerous for PACs in the United States, not just corporations.

And as much as many Americans may bash special interest groups, many of these interests provide a strong collective voice in the political system for large factions within the United States populace. Many of the intellectuals you mention are active, but they decide to play the game and battle their opponents in the political arena.

I'm not saying reform isn't necessary; like any human endeavor, the American system isn't perfect. However, the system does work... you just need to know how to play it. It's a lot more complex and gray than many people percieve it to be.

Perhaps we should take lessons from the NRA... I'm sure collectively, tech workers can scrape together more money than a bunch of guntotin' blue collar workers.

Oh... FYI

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/storysofar/ to pcontribs.asp?Bkdn=Source

EU IT had enough with Microsoft already

[bryanbrunton]

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

Watch out for sin taxes

[AllInOne]

Watch out! This could be like putting a "sin tax" on Microsoft.

Sin taxes are leveled on products and services that the government wants to discourage but is afraid to outlaw: gambling, liquor, tobacco...

At first the money that comes in is just "surplus", but very soon it gets its own constituancy -- the money is earmarked to support specific programs.

Next thing you know you can't afford to restrict the "sin" because it is supporting essential social programs.

You hear: "We can't outlaw the lottery (even tho it is essentially a tax on those who can least afford it ) because without the lottery would wouldn't have funds for X (in PA it's senior citizens, in NY it's schools)"

When the government collects 10% more from the sale of Microsoft products through a sin tax than they do from a Microsoft competitor they are no longer indifferent between a Microsoft product and a competitor, they favor Microsoft! This ends up having the exact opposite from the effect indended.

As other posters have submitted, it would be very important to watch where the collected funds would go, especially for this reason...

And what would you have us do?

[Greyfox]

Me: Republican party! I'm outraged at your obvious back-scratching of microsoft! I'm going to send the Democratic party $100 and vote Democrat next election!
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.

EULA acceptance = no Microsoft liability

[phillymjs]

Anyone running Microsoft software has accepted the EULA for that software. No matter what Microsoft claims in their marketing materials about how robust, secure, etc. their products are, the EULA usually quite specifically absolves Microsoft of any liability at all, should their products not perform as advertised and instead cause damage to or destruction of the hardware on which it is used, monetary loss, injury or loss of life, or anything else that most people would term "bad" and start looking for someone to sue over.

This is patently ridiculous, IMHO. Imagine if GM bragged in their commercials about how safe their cars are because they have airbags, and then printed a EULA on their airbags that absolved them of any liability if the user died from using the airbag. Would people still buy GM cars? Probably not. Until software companies can be held totally accountable for the claims they make about the robustness and security of their products, the users of those products will always get the shaft, and have little recourse when they do.

~Philly

Details of the "obstruction" charge

[null_session]

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.

Penalties by third party greater than by friends

[WillSeattle]

One of the key mistakes MSFT has made is in trying to avoid having a US court rule on punishment. By doing so, they forced the EU (EEC) to act, and unlike America where MSFT has some support and lobbying dollars, the EU does not like MSFT.

It's better to be punished by people who think you're a good guy than by people who are convinced you are bad. But they still persist in thinking that they can escape punishment through trickery.

Aim Gun, Miss Foot, Collect Check, Reload...

[hey!]

Microsoft yet again (apparently) makes life more difficult for themselves. I'm no huge fan of the company, but even I think that they would have had a *much* better time in both the US trial and EU investigation if they didn't play so dirty (the whole video debacle at the US trial, the apparent obstruction of justice with the EU trial)

Judging by how lucrative MS's practices are, I almost wish some of the stocks I own would get in the habit of shooting themselves in the foot. Eventually MS will tap out, but it's been a hell of a ride for a long time -- which is about all you can ask for as a shareholder. Err, other than ethical behavior, that is; but that only concerns a few eccentric cranks.

I have on occasion been in business situations that involved ticklish ethical questions. For example in the early 90s I was involved with a group where the marketing director wanted to carpet bomb various usenet groups with postings (this was before anyone heard of spam). If I hadn't already been an old timer who could point out the damage to our reputation that thoughtless posting on what was a cooperative medium, we would have been pioneering spammers. It's hard to maintain your integrity and maximize your chances for success. More often than not these aspects of a decision get confused, which if you think about it is not surprising: if you are successful, almost nobody questions you; if you fail, then they question everything, including your ethics. And people tend look to each other for confirmation that they haven't gone beyond the pale of decency. It's normally a healthy thing. But success tends to bless any practice that would be reviled if failure followed it, independent of its own usefulness or morality. I suspect that given enough success a group of people will eventually develop a culture that is proud of things that disgust ordinary people.

A little failure is character building; but MS is a company that has never ever had any failure that mattered. So, is it any wonder that shame doesn't figure into their corporate culture? It looks to us like they shot themselve in the foot because they acted in a way that would make anyone else blush. But it doesn't matter, because none of it has affected the bottom line. And, it seems like with the DOJ rolling over and dying, once again the bullet has missed their foot.

Which given normal business psychology justifies everything that they have done. Like the GM chairman who said "What's good for GM is good for the country," they must have a very unshakable sense of the rightness of their cause.

Unbundle and document!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Those of you who remember the IBM antitrust years may recall one of the outcomes of that debacle: IBM was forced to unbundle its services from its products, and forced to document its interfaces. The birth of a reasonably fair aftermarket soon followed.

Let's home this happens to Microsoft too, and they have to completely remove all mentions of Passport/Hotmail from Windows, as well as IE and Media Player.