EU Finds Microsoft Guilty Of Abusing Monopoly

cabalamat2 writes "The European Commission's draft report on Microsoft says they are guilty of abusing their monopoly position. The ruling proposes that Microsoft be fined; the amount of the fine will be decided in March or April, and the maximum fine permitted is 10% of Microsoft's global turnover, about $3.2bn. Microsoft are allowed to appeal against any judgement that goes against them, to the Court of First Instance, and it's expected they will do so, to drag out the process as long as possible."

Comments

MS abusing its monopoly?

[lordmoose]

And in other news: Kids like to play.

But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok

[eht]

For some reason Microsoft whose only real crime is too much capitalism while DeBeers's monopolistic practices encourage slavery and for real wars.

Re:But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok

[dago]

The things which is forbidden is not to have a monopoly and do things to keep it, but to use it in an unfair way to gain over competitors in other markets.

MS did that with windows -> internet explorer, media player.

DeBeers : diamonds -> ???

Re:But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok

[PainKilleR-CE]

The things which is forbidden is not to have a monopoly and do things to keep it, but to use it in an unfair way to gain over competitors in other markets.

I'm not sure what EU law is on the matter, but US law states that it is illegal to do certain things to maintain a monopoly, and, in fact, these were the easiest things to prove against Microsoft in it's antitrust case (and most of those which they were found guilty of have supposedly been remedied, or at least are remedied if Microsoft does what they were told to do by the court).

It's not just about pushing your way into other markets, but also about preventing people from entering your market. This is why Apple was ruled out as a competitor in the OS market, because the hardware platforms are themselves a barrier preventing consumers from switching from an MS OS to an Apple OS (of course, this completely ignores the fact that many (if not most) consumers simply buy a new computer instead of upgrading, but I'm not the one that made the ruling).

DeBeers has done quite a bit to prevent other people from entering the diamond market, including threatening to flood the market if someone else enters, thereby reducing the price of diamonds and (hopefully from DeBeers' standpoint) make the market unprofitable for others. Once the other company goes out of business, supplies get choked off again and the prices gradually return to previous levels.

Wake me up in 2007

[etymxris]

When Microsoft will have finished their appeals. By that time, they will have already crushed the competitors whose misfortunes initiated this inquiry. Furthermore, new anti-trust violations will be pending on new behavior, which will not be settled for another few years.

Late justice may as well be no justice. The courts of the US and EU need to find a way to act more swiftly in such matters.

Re:Wake me up in 2007

[SpaceLifeForm]

Hey, give the EU some credit. At least they are imposing a penalty.

Re:Wake me up in 2007

[etymxris]

Hey, give the EU some credit. At least they are imposing a penalty.

Yes, I agree, this is commendable. But I seem to remember a much more severe judgement being handed down several years ago--the splitting of the company. Unfortunately, that did not survive appeal. While the current judgement is a good sign, it means nothing until the appeals have been fully resolved.

Who gets the money?

[Dr. Bent]

What I want to know is, if they do get fined $3.2 billion, who gets it? I suppose the lawyers will get thier cut before anyone else, but what are they going to do with the $2 or $3 million left after that?

So

[wizarddc]

If they appeal, and lose, do they also have to pay interest on their fine? They were found guilty of abusing this power now, so if they drag it out 3-5 years, do they have to pay back interest on that 3.2 billion? Wouldn't that be a deterent for the long, dragged out cases? If they have to pay a few years of coupounded interest, they might not be so lawyer happy.

*cough*

[Oriumpor]

BIAS*cough*

to the Court of First Instance, and it's expected they will do so, to drag out the process as long as possible.

Like any company anywhere given the opportunity to appeal wouldn't do so...

Monopolies are made because the financial benefits outweigh the legal risk. And because we give companies the chance to harrang a few million dollars litigiously.

Not like dumb people can sue a corporation because they spilled HOT coffee on themselves and win or anything.... Whatever happens in this case will matter little. Who cares if they are fined 10% of their revenue, subtract development and the .1% of manufacturing costs and that will probably barely even ding their bottom line.

This is NOT off-topic

[DesScorp]

Zealots are modding this guy down, but he's got a good point. While everyone wants to see Microsoft brought to heel, why is Europe so hot on monopolies now, when DeBeers has had one enforced through blood and terror for decades?

The answer, I suspect, has less to do with justice than the feeling that MS is harming Europe's native software industries.

Re:This is NOT off-topic

[squiggleslash]

No, it's off topic. It'd be like arguing that someone convicted of embezzling funds from their employer is in some way being harshly treated because they haven't convicted Kenneth Lay of anything.

DeBeers is obviously rather good at evading responsibility for their actions. Countries in Africa, Europe, and North America all, theoretically, are touched by DeBeer's actions yet have taken no concrete steps to deal with them. Why is anyone's guess, but given the outcry over their business practiceses in general, I seriously doubt it's due to an unwillingness to deal with them.

Re:McDonald's coffee lawsuit

[jefeweiss]

People bring up this case all the time without taking the time to find out what the details were. When it was all said and done no one got "filthy rich" off that case. The original damages awarded by the jury were reduced by the judge. And the woman who spilled the coffee had third degree burns all over her legs. You could spill coffee from your home coffee maker on your legs all day long and not get anything worse then a big red patch of skin.