Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Fined $143m for Price-Fixing
kyz writes "The BBC is reporting that the anti-trust branch of the European Commission has fined Nintendo 146 million euros (roughly $143m) for preventing its distributors from selling games as cheaply as they are sold in other European Union countries. For example, "prices of Nintendo products were up to 65% higher in Germany or the Netherlands than in Britain".
Now if only the EU could do this with Microsoft, Levi Strauss and the MPAA members..."
Does anyone else remember getting a check from Nintendo (in the late 80s) for like $5 or $10? Apparently they were price fixing the NES Unit for $99, and were order to pay a fixed amount to every registered NES owner.
Normally it's the UK that has the highest prices in Europe.
But the period they were fined for was only 1991-1998. That still leaves the past 4 years to be accounted for.
But then again Gamecube games are still a lot cheaper than X-box and PS2 games if you know where to shop so maybe they have learnt their lesson.
The number is EUR 149 million.
Read the press release from the European Commission.
Nintendo competes in one of the fiercest markets around.
That was not the case in the mid 90s Europe, the market which the allegation is about.
Tor
Coins exploding from his body Sonic the Hedgehog style?
No, that's rings, and that's when you get hit, not when you die (as "explode" in the blurb implied). Coins come off a dying player in Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The Register is carrying another story here with evidence that Nintendo expected a far smaller fine - around 50M. An interesting read that'll make you think twice before publishing MSWord docs to all and sundry :-)
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Nintendo has already changed it's method of distribution YEARS ago. That is why they are appealing.
The EU contacted NOE, and they cooperated and fixed the problems, now the EU is back stabbing them.
and the EU isn't even democratically elected!
ok, I'll bite.
The EU is run by five institutions, each playing a specific role:
* European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);
* Council of the Union (composed of the governments of the Member States);
* European Commission (driving force and executive body);
* Court of Justice (compliance with the law);
* Court of Auditors (sound and lawful management of the EU budget).
I trust that you'll believe me if I told you that the goverments of the member states are democratically elected.
The comission "has a college of 20 members. The President, the two Vice-Presidents and the 17 other Members of the Commission are chosen for their general competence, and all present guarantees of independence. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin, often at ministerial level.
The Commission is reappointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. This interval gives the new Parliament time to approve the Commission President proposed by the Member States, before the President designate constitutes his future team, in collaboration with the governments of the Member States. Parliament then gives its opinion on the entire college through a process of approval. Once accepted by the Parliament, the new Commission can officially start work the following January. "
That's ok for me, so let's go on to the Court
The judges and the advocates-general are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the Member States for a renewable term of six years, with partial reappointment every three years. These are members of the highest national judiciary or jurisconsults of recognised competence presenting all the guarantees of independence.
Again, it sounds good to me
Finally, The Court of Auditors comprises 15 members appointed by the Council for a renewable term of six years, ruling unanimously after consultation with the European Parliament.
So the main bodies of the EU are either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. I really don't see what your problem is.
Yep you are correct, partially. They are allowed to sell their product for any price they wish. But they were also preventing games from crossing the border. THAT is the illegal part, not the prices themselves.
They were caught by laws *requiring* free exchange of goods across borders.
If there was a proper free market, then they would have been forced for business reasons to getmore uniform prices. The market wasn't free in this case.
Presumably because all of Europe is under one DVD region. The EU's purpose is to handle things between it's different member states, it has no authority over trade between EU states and other non-EU states, or at least not the same level of authority.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Home Depot
State Farm
Proctor & Gamble
I wasn't sure how easy it would be to find info on the other companies, but it was pretty easy... Here's some links for the other companies, just for fun:
Boeing (2)
Morgan Stanley
Fannie Mae
Apparently, Target isn't well-liked, either.
Safeway
Granted, you may not agree with all of these people's opinions, but the complaints are there.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
I normally don't respond to trolls, but I have a few minutes to kill.
I wasn't aware any of these corporations are non-profit charities.
Nobody said, or implied, that they were. I have no idea where you got that.
What's wrong with maximizing profits by adjusting prices in different countries?
It's called price gouging. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's morally repugnant. There is a difference between making a tidy profit, and gouging the consumer.