Slashdot Mirror
EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft
doga writes "As reported by various publications, Microsoft is facing its deadline tonight at midnight central European time. The commissioner has then to decide whether it implemented correctly the measures (windows without media player and interop documentation) or if it should be fined up to 5% of its daily sales." From the article: "European antitrust regulators, who have been at odds with Microsoft over its efforts to comply with its order, hope to make a decision by July 20 as to whether Microsoft has submitted an acceptable proposal for compliance, said Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Union. That date is the last meeting of the European Commission before its summer recess."
There's no real doubt that Microsoft will submit a proposal, however, given their previous efforts, it's likely to be another "Well we'll do *bits* of what you asked and charge people for it" proposal.
20 days from now means something like $100,000,000 in retroactive fines even *if* Microsoft then immediately handed in an acceptable new proposal on the same day.
And I'm still not sure if they've actually paid the ~500 million Euro fine that was imposed originally.
I've heard the whole spiel on the EU thing from Microsoft's point of view, as can only be gotten off the record by a personal friend (he works on Longhorn). To put it simply, Microsoft will comply with the EU's demands as they have to, and they will adapt as necessary - but there are some things on which they simply will not budge, and most of those relate to how they engineer their software.
Microsoft's internal opinion of the EU is that it is acting entirely for economical reasons, that is, selfish ones. Fining Microsoft millions means lots of needed cash for some of the EU members whose economies aren't doing too hot. It also means the apprecation of Microsoft's competitors in the region (Real, Apple, etc.) who would, to use my friend's phrase, "line their (the EU's) coffers with cash."
Incidentally, Microsoft is perfectly capable of pulling its business completely out of EU nations, though that is of course an absolute last option. Note that such a move would be disastrous for consumers there (and don't think for a second that it wouldn't be), but Microsoft would continue as ever.
The coolest voice ever.
Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce? A right to ownership? Maybe because they know they cannot produce.
It's a give and take: the state also acts as "collectivists" when they allows such things as incorporation: which allows individual investors to get off the hook for paying out for failed business ventures.
It also supports copyrights, patents, and other such interferances in the free market, in order to promote the collective good.
Why, when a corporation is being punished for knowingly violating anti-trust laws (laws made to protect the market, and the public good), are you suddenly upset?
Microsoft probably wouldn't even exist in the first place without government protections in the form of copyright monopolies and laws to support incorporation. Microsoft willfully breaks the law; but heartily sues anyone who does the same. How is that fair?
--
AC
those rat bastards will find a way to pass the costs onto the consumer.
You sir, have no idea how right you are. Basically, whenever a tax is levvied, the supply curve (how much product a producer produces) shifts up and left the tax amount. (See first few diagrams on this page)
When you have a monopoly position (like MS does), that demand curve (the "\" curve) gets more and more verticval because you kinda need MS prods to survive. Thus that "Deadweight Loss" to consumers, not to MS, is much higer than that of MS.
Sucks balls, huh?