Slashdot Mirror
Mario Monti Fines Microsoft 100 Million?
n3k5 writes "EU competition commissioner Mario Monti has been in the news a lot lately, following "[...] a preliminary decision that Microsoft is breaking European law by abusing its dominant position in the personal computers' market. However, [the Commission] needs to carry out a series of consultations before finalising its verdict, due by May 1." (Financial Times article) The latest articles all cite German magazine FOCUS, which reports in its current issue that, according to "informed" EU sources, the Commission is considering imposing a record fine of EUR 100,000,000 (USD 123,840,000) on Microsoft. "Amelia Torries, a spokeswoman for Monti, dismissed the report as 'pure and utter speculation.'" (Channel NewsAsia article)"
...welcome our new first-posting Microsoft-suing overlords!
That'll teach'em.
Next column:
Microsoft shares fall $0.02!Ohhh... nasty... fined ~$0.30 for each person in the EU...
Slap another two zeros on that and you would be talking about a serious fine.
Happy Trails,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Why do they simply give them a fine? This is behavior that deserves more than just paying a fine. MS has no trouble coming up with cash. If a few top level execs got thrown into jail it may make a bit of difference. Reminds me of the joke of only having to shoot one politician and the rest tend to fall into line.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Microsoft replied... "Cash or Check?"
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
EU: We fine you ... One hundred ... million dollars (pinky finger to the lip)
Microsoft Board : bwahahahaahhaahahahah
They may also wish these 100M to be paid in windows licenses, preferably to use in schools.
Legal fees: $5,000,000
1.2% of quarterly revenue: $120,000,000
Settling a lawsuit which slows your progress towards Complete World Domination: Priceless
Some things money can't buy. Everything else will soon be owned by Microsoft.
This is just business as usual for Microsoft. Fines are a blip on the bottom line for a particular quarter. The MS war chest is huge, diverting a small percentage of revenue to the chest allows them to pay fines with money they took from you illegally in the first place.
Better idea for the governments: take the money then spend it on promoting open source and non-monopolistic software within your own countries.
Trolling is a art,
Actually, this is not true! From Microsoft's latest SEC filings, it has a $US 52 billion dollar reserve.. 100 million would be avout 0.2% of that...
MSFT has 10,805,000,000 outstanding shares. An increase of $0.009 will generate the $100M in shareholder value. If the stock price
"Ain't I a stinka..." - Bugs
What's the incentive for Microsoft to stop their abuse? The abuse nets more money than any fine is likely to take away, and is the quickest way to make $$ back after the fine. This won't solve a darn thing.
The effective solutions (start multiple companies off with the Windows source code and have them compete, for example) are very radical, and I don't know if most of them are in the power of the EU. But if the US government is any example, the will to use them isn't there anyway, so Microsoft can write their check and go back to business as usual.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The Focus articles states that Microsoft hat to disclose "important informations about Windows" to their competition. I think that means the Windows-API. This would prevent further offences. Could WINE get advantages out of it?
EU: We are fining you EUR100M....
... And we are going to give it all to the FSF.
MS: *Yawn* Can you make change for EUR1B?
EU:
www.eFax.com are spammers
Hang on a minute, it was the U.S itself which brought legal action against Microsoft well before the EU commision began to investigate its business practices. The EU action is simply a continuation of something that the US started nearly a decade ago, so why the bitching and moaning?
And one might also speculate if there is any connections to the latest steel and Galileo-related trade wars.
No, see above. Besides which the EU went straight to WIPO concerning the steel tariffs and they were found totally illegal. The EU has already "retaliated" legally.
Amelia Torries, a spokeswoman for Monti, dismissed the report as 'pure and utter speculation.'
But I heard it on Slashdot! It must be true!
The real effect on MS is going to be determined by whether this ends the cycle of lawsuits, or whether it's just another ramping-up of the same.
If it signals an end to them, MS's stock price will likely benefit.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I am begging any europeans reading this to make a holy noise about "COUPONS FOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF CASH". It's bad enough that we have Jethro Clampett in the US presidency, in charge of the USDoJ and the people's interest in the MS antitrust issue. Please help make sure the goon's mistakes are not mirrored in the EU! Also, don't accept any namby-pamby payment plans. Get the lump-sum immediately, or seize assets and slap extra fines for delaying payment.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
following the EU's decision to let Microsoft off on a good behaviour bond, the EU will deploy 50,000 Windows clients and 800 Windows 2k3 servers in a five year deal with Microsoft. Terms could not be disclosed on grounds of commercial confidentiality. Microsoft will also be providing five free copies of Office XP to schools throughout the EU.
Yeah, its one big anti-American conspirecy
Gee, don't see many EU companies in that list do we? Oh wait yes we do!
Monti has teeth, and he can be an outright asshole if he wants to - in other words, exactly the right person for this job.
What's 100 mio? Just a show of teeth, not a bite. Almost certainly (as with prior cases), it won't be "pay and continue", it'll be "pay and stop, and if you don't stop, we'll be doubling the fine and ask again, repeating until you do stop."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually, they would, and quite a few times _did_ happen.
You see, some of us still live in "backwards" parts of the world (e.g., Europe), which still cling to old beliefs.
Like: that courts of law are actually there to uphold the law, not to just bend over and grab their ankles if it's a big corporation. The sad mockery of justice that the US did with Microsoft would have not happened in any European country. Again, repeat after me: the role of a court of law is to uphold the law, not to promote the financial interests of big business.
Or like: that the law itself is supposed to serve the people, and not just be a way for politicians to reward their corporate friends.
Now I'm not saying that it's perfect. But it does tend to work. And so far it's never produced such ridiculous clown shows as the Microsoft settlement in the USA.
So rest assured that if your government is there officially just to brown-nose the rich people for campaign donations, other governments and politicians tend to be a lot more subtle about taking bribes.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Microsoft's Home Entertainment division threw $348 MILLION away in the last QUARTER for which numbers are available, due to their policy of trying to grab a hold of the console market by selling their console at such a massive loss that licensing fees don't begin to make up for it. Think about this. This is about $100 million PER MONTH.
If MS will cheerfully spend $100 million a month to *potentially* expand their monopoly into a new market-- basically gaining customers by largely paying for the customers' products for them-- how exactly is $100 million going to make a difference as a fine? Isn't the idea of antitrust remedy to do something to convince the company to not perform their anticompetitive actions again? $100 million isn't just something MS would happily pay to maintain their monopoly, it's LESS than they're ALREADY spending to maintain their monopoly.
If this does turn out to be more than just rumors, this isn't a penalty for monopolistic status and anticompetitive action; it's a tax, a "ok, go on as you have, but give us some money for the privilidge to do so", and a measly one at that.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
My fear is that MS will fight this decision tooth and nail, and that in the end the EU will take the easy way out, settling for just the cash. The EU will have their 'win'; MS can proceed with business as usual after ponying up some chump change.
I'd rather see MS keep their money but made tot comply with the other demands.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Misappropriate it like any politician would?
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Microsoft owe me forty quid from November and it's like getting blood out of a stone.
If they would do this to an European software company like SAP or Nokia. And one might also speculate if there is any connections to the latest steel and Galileo-related trade wars.
They would and they have. And, all other reasons aside, simply because there is no such thing as a "European company": if SAP or Nokia becomes monopolistic, half a dozen other European nations scream.
I think for Americans to complain that other Western nations have too close ties between domestic companies and government is absurd.
The EU could assess a maximum fine of 2.5 billion Euros if Microsoft is found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior.
Without regard for what many believe to be MS's list of anti-competitive actions, the EU complaint centers on two issues and those issues alone determine the findings and penalty (if any):
Microsoft is accused by the EU of trying to squelch rival products to its Windows Media Player, such as RealPlayer and Apple QuickTime.
Microsoft has also been accused of trying to squeeze out other firms in the market for "low-end servers" -- computers that provide e-mail and other services to multiple users and might run rival open-source software.
Anything else, no matter how guilty MS is of doing so, isn't part of the complaint and is moot.
The remedy proposed by the EU will almost certainly contain other conditions besides monetary penalties. As in the US judgment against MS, it's these conditions which will probably impact MS's future business and income, not the fine.
It is also widely believed that Microsoft will almost certainly appeal any decision that doesn't vindicate the company; estimates vary but all generally agree a final decision and remedy is years away.
Many well-meaning individuals have proposed adding 3 zeros to the fine; this sounds good from an anti-Microsoft standpoint, but it's simply bad for the economy; remember that by fining a corporation ridiculous amounts of cash we don't punish the people that make the poor decisions (CEOs, chairmen, board of directors) but the guys just like us, working to make a living so that we can hack in our spare time and play with our kids.
There is a better way, I think. If we force open formats for data storage and network protocols, market penetration will be less useful as leverage to increase the barrier to entry of competition.
Thinking outside my Head
Sadly, we're probably wasting our breath, though. I doubt that some of these people even know where Europe is on a map.
Not saying _everyone_ is like that. Some people actually read stuff, and all... but you'd be surprised how many Americans' idea of European legal precedents is based on Hollywood action movies. And given Hollywood's tradition of treating other countries and cultures like a baby treats a diaper... you can guess what those ideas are like.
E.g., that around here we're all tribesmen, oppressed by some carricature of a corrupt government, and get mob/neo-nazi/whatever wars at every street corner. All while, of course, waiting for a True American Hero (TM) to come in, guns blazing, and restore justice.
Just sad...
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Yes, a hundred million"
"Whew ... for a second I thought you said a hundred billion ..."
The Raven
Everyone else has come out with the obvious 'but 100m would be nothing compared to their cash reserves' line.. but forgetting that, Gates doesn't seem to mind fines anyway. He just sees them as a way of getting away with stuff and paying it off.
If you read many of the Microsoft biographies, you'll read stuff talking about how Gates was heavily into speeding everywhere he went, and was constantly being fined and given tickets. He even ended up in jail for it, which is where the infamous Bill Gates in jail picture came from.
But who cares? When you're making massive bucks each month, is it worth a few hundred in fines to stop speeding all the time, if you're not going to end up in jail for a long haul? No. Same goes with this. Paying this fine is just a great way of getting the EU off his back without any hard work.
Daimler Chrysler - 71m Euros in 1991
Deutche Post - 24m Euros in 1991
Volkswagen - 91m Euros in 2000
But in any case, Microsoft is not the record - Roche was fined 462m Euros for anti-trust in 2001. Google for more...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It's actually the opposite which should happen. In the US many more lawsuits were filed after the decision by the courts that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly and abused their power. Once that became official it was much easier to sue Microsoft on those grounds. There was no more need to prove in court they're an abusive monopoly as it's already decided. All that's left to prove is you're a victim of that abuse. The same may go in Europe, although of course I'm just speculating based on what's happened in the US.
Developers: We can use your help.
That aside, it would be interesting to know how much revenue Microsoft can attribute to the Italian market in a year. If it's less than a hundred million euros they might consider just suspending business in Italy for a while.
Why Italy? Because Mr Mario is italian?
This is a EU decision, that this particular plumber, i mean minister is italian doesn't mean squat.
Anyway, "suspending business" in a market just to spite someone would be an incredibly stupid move for a software company, one that will never happen outside your fantasies.
The consequence would be an entire continent simultanously deciding to migrate all business critical apps away from MS, because they could no longer be considered a reliable supplier.
Does that sound like something MS would risk over what is, for them, pocket change?
No, they'll try to pay it in monopoly money (software to schools etc.) and if that don't work they'll just bite the bullet, pay in real money and move on.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Assuming that they do fine Microsoft and Microsoft does pay, where will this $100 million go?
Will it just go into the EU's wallet or will it go to promote/help alternative OSs? I think that Microsoft definitely has some retribution in store but I think it's important that countries don't look at Microsoft as a blank check that they can use for their purposes.
The money needs to back to the source (i.e. the alternative OSs that were hurt).
(I couldn't get to the article because of the necessary subscription so this might be addressed there.)
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I smell a MS software audit for all EU governments.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Flunkie: Mr Gates the EU is fining us 100 million Euros ... ... no response ... ... ... ... OK, there you go ... 100 million!
Gates:
Flunkie: Mr. Gates, did you hear me; 100 million!
Gates: Yeah, yeah, hold on a sec
Flunkie: Ummm, Mr. Gates
Gates: Hang on, I've got one more sofa cushion to go
[Insert pithy quote here]
They need to put the people in jail. Find the MS-Euro chiefs who knowningly followed this path of exploitation and lock them up.
A fine against a corporation is just like a tax against a corporation. It is an embedded tax on the consumer. Whether or not many EU people buy MS products they will be paying this "fine". Simply put too many companies and governments use MS products which spreads the cost.
Another alternative would be for the EU to use it as an excuse to move to a linux variant or encourage the schools and other public institutions to do so.
Again, a fine is just a tax, so don't be cheering up that tax you will be paying.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If you'll read even the summary that Slashdot has posted, the 100 million figure is just speculation. It is not official, and it is not confirmed in any way by officials.
So, hey, how about taking your own advice: save the holier-than-thou stuff for when we actually know know the actual number.
But if you really want to debate a number pulled out of some journalist's ass, bear in mind that Europe already _did_ do stuff against Microsoft, among which overturning their OEM EULA. Here there's no automatic "Microsoft Tax" on hardware sales.
What's left in this "plastic sabre rattling" hinges mostly on stuff like the inclusion of the Windows Media Player in Windows, and how much it's hurt RealNetworks. (Although Real isn't an European company.)
I.e., whatever fines will be imposed, will have to do with the size of the damage in this case, not with some "let's bankrupt Microsoft because they're obviously evil" crusade.
The other face of the coin that courts of law should strictly uphold the law, is that they're not supposed to win a popularity contest either. The moment you start handing sentences like "pay 100 billion euro" or "burn the witch at the stake" just because it's what makes the spectators cheer, is just as wrong.
And honestly, if you want to know what I think about RealOne, see yesterday's thread. RealNetworks went above and beyond the call of duty to alienate their own users. Much as I'm otherwise no Microsoft fan, in this case _I_ would pat them on the back instead of any fine.
But again, that's all just ranting and speculation. Until we hear an official number, this is all just a useless typing exercise.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
European companies are governed by a much stricter monopolies law that makes it illegal to have a monoplistic market share, even if it was obtained fairly. Plenty of EU companies have been broken up long before they became as big.
Compared to Enron, the Parmalat scandal is pretty small beer, the shareholders were cheated, but they were not allowed to do anything like the manipulation of the California energy market Enron did.
Berlusconi's media empire has been getting away with plenty of chicanery, but only because Burlusconi became Prime Minister and awarded himself immunity from prosecution. Even then, he is being investigated and is likely to be brough to trial. Compare that to the treatment of Bush over his proven-beyond-doubt insider trading at Harken.
OK the US is no more corrupt than Italy, but it is pretty bad when it sinks to that level.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It is an embedded tax on the consumer.
Normally, this is true. However, when discussing a company with billions in the bank, I think this is false. The company is not forced to raise prices to recoup the loss. In fact, the entire point of the fine is that the prices were already raised.
A tax on a company is a tax on consumers when the company is just barely staying afloat (which really describes most companies)... of course the customers may leave if it gets bad enough so it's still not a tax. (And again, the entire point is monopoly abuse, that customers can't just leave, so again, I don't think your comment applies in this case.)
I don't think any EU customers are going to see price hikes as a result of this; that would just get MS another, probably larger fine.
No, we call '100,000,000' one hundred million. We call '1,000,000,000' one billion.
If they really want to do something, fines are not the way to go. The only effective measure would be to make them modify Windows. In the US, because they weren't forced to modify windows' bundling, the fines levied really had no effect. In fact it was a positive experience for them because they paid their fines mostly in free software to schools, furthering their monopoly. If IE was seperated from the OS, then something might have actually change.
Reports were that the EU was considering seperating Windows Media Player from the OS. I think this would be a good start, but not enough. And a mere fine wouldn't be enough either.
What I think really needs to be done to break their monopoly.
a) Seperate Outlook Express, IE, Media Player, and Windows Messenger from the OS. Make them free downloads from Microsoft.com
b) OEM's shouldn't have such a hefty penalty for also selling competing OS's. All MS OEM contracts for desktop systems contain provisions that keep you from selling any other OS than windows. If you don't sign a contact, you pay retail. This needs to be done away with.
c) All file formats non-patentable and documents for the file format specs need to be made available publicly so competing software can be made interoperable.
Those "everyone" do not seem to have any problem to move from Windows3.11 to Windows95 and from ther to WindowsNT or Windows2000, and from there to WindowsXP.
All those migrations are not smooth, many things change (as we can attest by the great side business that teaching MS software is, a whole industry in helping people use the "user friendly" products of MS reaps the benefits).
It is completely disingineous to see people migrating all the time to very different software platforms whose only similarity is the name of the manufacturer and then deny that that same peoplsomehow would become stupid if they would need to migrate to OSS solutions.
Pure and adultereted FUD and patronizing of users covered by the sheepskin of concern for loss of productivity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Maybe it is strange to americans, because you have a different culture.
In the US, everything is mangled through the court system, and the government is - at least on paper - weak and limited.
In the EU, many things are handled by the bureaucracy, and the courts are generally seen as a last resort.
Both systems have their advantages and shortcomings. While the EU probably has the most convulted and bloated bureaucracy on the planet, the US is a giant job-guarantee program for lawyers and so lawsuit-happy that it is sickening.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org