Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Be Fined E500M By European Union?
An anonymous reader writes "According to a Reuters story, the European Commission is in the process of fining Microsoft 497 million Euros ($613 million). The most important reason for the fine was the refusal by Microsoft to share more information about its products with competitors. Mario Monti, the EU competition commissioner, decided to impose the fine after talks with Microsoft broke down last week." The last estimate was a mere 100 million Euros, and it's noted: "If the full European Commission backs the fine as expected on Wednesday it would exceed the 462 million euro penalty imposed on Hoffman-La Roche AG in 2001 for being ringleader of a vitamin cartel."
It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft. Rather than finding them guilty of anti-trust laws, then slapping them on the wrist....
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
MS would never do that, it would only help the switch to Linux of a complete continent
When are governments going to get a clue? Screw fines - almost no amount of money you can take from them will really have an effect on their behavior or the market. What the EU ought to do is to tell MS that if they want to do future business in Europe, they need to make the Office file formats an EMCA standard, and that any patents they have on the formats must be licenesed royalty-free. That would create real change and competition in the market - let them compete on implementation, as it ought to be!
The Free desktop that Just Works
Unforunately, like all big businesses, any government fines or restrictions will inevitably be passed on down to their consumers. But I have a feeling none of this 500 million slap-on-the-wrist will go anywhere near Microsoft consumers. Expect to see price hikes in the future.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
As for the verdict, having things go through courts all over the nation has good and bad consequences. Sure, the fine is a Good Thing because Microsoft deserves to be fined, since they ripped people off and have engaged in unfair, illegal competitive practices, and W's administration did not allow them to be brought to justice. But Microsoft, at the same time, is using international courts in its assault against Lindows (aka Lin----), which I would say is a Bad Thing.
It is about smacking them in the head to get their attention.
If Microsoft doesn't change its practices, we can see more fines such as this. Eventually, Microsoft will change.
Why _SHOULD_ microsoft go out of business?
It is one thing to aim for fairness, it is another thing to just be blinded by hate.
Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore?
Yes. And also give up what 30-40% of their bottom-line.. Which is a LOT more than that puny fee.
but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?
Microsoft would be killed by it. Several hundred million europeans would be forced to switch OS and application software.
That'd get the Linux ball rolling, and how!
Heck, with Microsoft out of the way, the economy would totally boom, as companies would be free to innovate in the tech realm without the fear of Microsoft stealing their ideas then crushing them.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The real penalty for Microsoft is having to extract it's media player from the OS and collaborate with other software company media companies. This will increase their support costs in the long run.
humble and proud of it.
Microsoft associate general counsel for Europe Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement the fine was unjustified. "We believe it's unprecedented and inappropriate for the Commission to impose a fine on a company's U.S. operations when those operations are already regulated by the U.S. government and the conduct at issue has been permitted by both the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts," he said.
I'm sorry, but if you trade into the EU, then you are expected to obey the laws of that market. Doesn't matter where the head office is. I'd have thought that Bill would employ lawyers with a clue - at least enough of a clue not to make a stupid statement like this.
"This is a traffic ticket for Microsoft," said Thomas Vinje of Clifford Chance, who represents Microsoft critics.
Well, yes, and it's probably intended to be. Traffic tickets are not intended to end life as you know it, nor would a regulatory fine be intended to put a company out of business. Monopoly or not, it would not be in the EU's best interests for Microsoft to suddenly go belly up, or to abandon the European market because it's become unprofitable, thereby leaving all those currently using MS software in the lurch, support-wise, and out of all their license money that's guaranteed them future upgrades.
The "slap on the wrist" analogy is often used to show that a penalty is too light, but in fact the whole point of a slap on the wrist is to get your attention and change your way of thinking and acting. Traffic tickets do not usually bankrupt anybody but hopefully they will get you to follow the law. They are an annoyance and one that most people would rather not deal with. And the only real way you eliminate the risk of receiving one is by obeying the law.
So if this is seen as a traffic ticket, good. The penalty will have done its job.
Well, I keep hearing talks about Microsoft being a monopoly and needing to be punished. But, what I want to know is what are they actually being punished for.
For being a monopoly. Or rather, using their monopoly position to leverage themselves against competitors.
Spending millions of dollars to develop IE which was then distributed free with Windows pushed Netscape out of the browser business fast.
Now they're trying to do the same with AIM, Real, iTunes, well, you name it!
Doing that kind of stuff is not legal in the USA, nor is it legal in any western country. And for good reason: Monopoly practices are bad for everybody except the monopolist.
It's damaging to the economy. It's damaging for consumers.
Or to put it another way: Capitalism is it's own worst enemy.
(and that was pretty much agreed upon until certain politicans realized that big businesses had bigger pockets for campaign spending)
One of the things I love about being in the field of computer science is that it is still young. Years and years from now, there will be discussions in history books about Microsoft and all the good/evil things that came about from their aggressive domination of the industry. This EU judgment may even be cited... "Microsoft began to lose power in the early 21st century as it fell victim to a barrage of heavy fines for anti-competitive behavior. In 2004, the software giant faced its stiffest fine yet from the European Union at $613 million dollars. While this was a drop in the bucket to a company with $40 billion in cash reserves, it set a precedent that other countries soon followed."
Magnatune: Quality (DRM-free) MP3/FLAC/
It's not chump change. It's a small but significant dent, which they've unceremoniously been given in spite of Ballmer's best efforts to talk the authorities down last week.
It's also widely rumoured to be accompanied by (a) a compulsion to ship a version of Windows with Media Player completely stripped out, in order to remove the artificial dominance Microsoft has secured over the multimedia world, and (b) heavy penalty conditions if Microsoft gets up to this stuff again, so lengthy court action can be replaced by abruptly hitting them when they're down. These are, for now, only rumours, since the ruling won't be made public until later this week. However, no-one's jumping up and down denying them, and it's well known that all the European parties and Microsoft have seen that ruling. Draw any conclusions from that you like, or wait to see for sure mid-week.
At any rate, this isn't meant to kill Microsoft. It's meant to make them behave, and to reopen competition in the marketplace for the benefit of the public. In that respect, it seems fairly well judged, assuming the above rumours are reasonably accurate.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fines are a weak response, as it has been stated over again, this is piss in a pond to the likes of Microsoft.
On the other hand, the European Commission has the power under Article 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (which where anti-competitive behaviour is prohibited) to impose structural remedies: to insist upon corporate re-organisation or say an order to disclose information or to unbundle software. This would be a far more appropriate remedy that would actually be economically useful rather than a bit more cash in the bank for EU.
If the commission really has spine, it will seek this type of remedy rather than the easy way out. It may in fact seek a combination of fines and structural remedy, so we'll just have to wait and see.
That's quite a logical leap in four years. It's possible that Iraq developed the aforementioned weapons in four years, but based on what the troops found in the country, such a program would be in its infancy at best.
In the nuclear age, having the most powerful military in the world is like being the best boxer in a gunfight.
Had the EU (such as it was) approached Microsoft ten or fiteen years ago, and said: "We'll let you engage in anti-competitve practices in operating sytems, office applications, web browsers, and media players all you like for a crisp half-billion dollars, payable on delivery", do you think they would have taken the deal?
They have $50 Billion dollars in cash. 1% of one's cash reserves (never mind revenues) is simply not a punishment.
Imagine being taxed one percent of your life savings for a license to break all the laws you like. That sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
The problem with fines is that business already thinks in terms of money. Punishments for breaking the law are intended to deter behaviour. Fines are instead framed by the company as just the cost of doing business.
So how much did MS make by violating the law? More then 500 million? Then they ain't gonna stop.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. Where I live, there is a suburb that has repeatedly dumped raw sewage into the river that runs through the city rather than send it to a waste processing facility because the EPA fine is less than the cost of the treatment. There is no incentive for the city to stop doing this as long as it costs less.
The same analogy applies to Microsoft. If they make more by squeezing out the competition unfairly than they lose in fines, it's still a net gain for them overall and the next time around, there's fewer players to have to squeeze out. It's a win-win for them and a lose for everyone else (except the custodians of the fine money, it seems).
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I'm pretty sure that would be a violation of international law. I don't believe there's anything in international law that allows governments to seize copyrights as remediation in lieu of fines. I'm also pretty sure that MS made it so that no one who participates in Shared Source can do anything worth a damn for similar reasons as you outline.
The strange thing is the eerie silence in the european media about this kind of stuff. Or is it just me? I love the americans for their angry websites and wild discussions when stuff like this happens. I have to read about this and on an americam website. Should i as a dutchmen check german websites or learn french or swedish to hear about this ?
Kind of funny when people have a major discussion on history where they personalize the complicated actions of groups comprising millions of people into simple "us" and "you" terms. Even more amusing when both sides try to convince eachother that the other is wrong, even though they each cannot change the historical facts. Looking at those facts though, neither side is that innocent anyway.
Even if so-and-so did something really wrong decades ago, how does that apply to any of us living today anyway? Most Americans disagree on tons of issues... and the same applies to Europeans. Generalizing the will of either "side" into what dumb politicians say is unfair to both.
How about we just talk about our common interests like computers instead of showing too much misplaced nationalistic pride?
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
I can see that the Anti MS sentiment is strong enough for everyone to overlook this, but doesn't it seem a bit unfortunate for half a billion US dollars to fly off to fill some European government treasury?
Microsoft have been abusing their monopoly for years to the detriment of European citizens. Those "half billion US dollars" don't all come from the USA you know. Next time you see a "Windows worm estimated to have caused XXX kajillion dollars in damages", please remember that those worms don't just affect USA companies. Next time you see Microsoft kill competition by bundling applications with their operating system (virus scanners next, right?), remember that some of those companies were European.
Nope. These are hardly Hitler's worst evils. Any way you spin it, comparing Bush with Hitler is obviously preposterous. It should only take a few minutes of thought and use of common knowledge to notice the gigantic differences between the two men. I'm sure you're smart and educated enough to know them already, but just aren't bothering to seriously think about the issue. I would be insulting your intelligence if I took the time to enumerate them for you. I encourage you to just think of 5 ways in which Hitler is worse than Bush. After this, can you really come back after that and tell me again that they're comparable?
Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose Bush myself. But extreme comparisons like this only serve to discredit those who oppose Bush for sensible policy reasons.
What do you mean "worked"?. Clinton's Iraq policy did indeed work in that it accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. The goal being keeping Saddam under control and a non threat to the US and it's interests. Saddam was declawed enough to make him a non threating to the US, it's allies and it's interests. Clinton accomplished this with minimal amount of expenditure of lives and money. His plan worked perfectly and accomplished exactly what he wanted to do. As I said he had no desire to cram socialism down their throats. He felt that saddam was the problem of the Iraqis and it was up to them to do something about it. He really didn't care all that much about your average Iraqi, he was only concerned with US interests.
Bush had different policy goals. He wanted to invade and occupy iraq and was not content to merely contain saddam. His motivations were complex (oil, his father, biblical prophecy, US hegemony etc) but he knew from day one that he wanted to control iraq totally and absolutely. He too accomplished what he wanted even though it cost lots of money and lots of lives.
In the end both Clinton and Bush were looking out for their own interests. The interests of the Iraqis was and remains totally irrelevent.
If Bush had stood up before 9/11 and said "The US will use it's wealth, power and military might to end opression in the world and to destroy all dictators" I would be lining up to give him money and support. If he had said "we will deliver democracy to everybody and free everybody from the chains of opression and bondage no matter what it costs in lives and money" I would walk around my town begging people to vote for him.
He didn't say that because that's never been his goal. He will not lift a finger to deliver freedom to chechnians, palestenians, africans, tibetians, chinese, and the tens of millions of people suffering all over the world because they don't have something he wants.
I am still waiting for somebody (anybody) to explain to me why the Iraqi people deserved socialism more then any other people on the planet. Why they had to be delivered from evil first. It seems to me that your average north korean is and has been much more opressed. The average chechnians is much poorer, the average east timorese has suffered much more death and bloodshed, the average tibetians much more misery and ethnic cleansing. Too bad none of them have oil, too bad the bible makes no mention of them, too bad none of their leaders tried to kill his father.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.