Slashdot Mirror
'No Alternative' To Microsoft Fine
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is running an interview with Neelie Kroes, the competition commissioner for the EU. She confirms that the massive fines to Microsoft are absolutely necessary, and goes into some of the commissions reasons for slapping the giant down." From the article: "Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterization--Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then. Indeed, the monitoring trustee appointed in October 2005, from a shortlist put forward by Microsoft, believes that the decision clearly outlines what Microsoft is required to do. I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability. "
At least, that's how it appeared to me at the time.
Only if you ignored the appeals court ruling, which Microsoft mostly won. Bush probably did go easy on MS, but the government did not have the court rulings to impose EU-style penalties. This would have been true if Gore was elected also.
For a company in which just one member of it is worth at least 100 times that, how is this going to do anything?
g islation/98c9_en.html
Look at as a shot across the bow. Maximum anti-competetive fines are 10% of worldwide turnover. And as "aggrevating circumstances" they give examples like:
- repeated infringement of the same type by the same undertaking(s);
- refusal to cooperate with or attempts to obstruct the Commission in carrying out its investigations;
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/le
like they do in Texas, they demand all others to pay cash anyways.
The EU's "monopoly commission" (equivalent to the FTC in the US) does have teeth, and regularly does impose fines that are larger in proportion to the company size than those imposed against Microsoft.
Most of these, however, are imposed for illegal price-fixing between different companies.
The fine is around 2 million euros PER DAY, not a fixed amount. Dating from the original ruling.
It's also a punishment. Even if they turn round now and obey their instructions, they will still have to repay the fine. If they don't obey the law, they will not suffer just this small daily fine but will likely have further punishments.
It's not a "Pay this amount and we'll leave you alone" deal, it's "Pay this, AND fix stuff, or we'll make you pay even more".
Oh, come on! This is what? Like 1/20th or 1/40th of what a tiny country like Sweden transfers to the EU budget ANNUALLY. Sure, this will put the budget out of the red if they are in a pinch. Suuuure.
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
From the FAQ:
Where does the money go?
The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the Budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States. The fines therefore reduce the overall tax burden on individuals.
There are already viable OS products being GIVEN AWAY that run plenty of software and are more stable.
Are you stupid? I've seen your rants further up, and you seem to have no idea about the issue at all. Those products you speak of are severely hampered because they can't interoperate with the entrenched quasi-monopolist, and this is what the ruling was about: MS was ordered to document their stuff so that interoperation is possible in the interest of the user. MS didn't comply and thought they can weasle out of this. They have been fined, and rightly so.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Not really. The court ruled that while there was no actual impropriety on the part of Judge Jackson, there was the appearance of it, and that was largely why they threw out Jackson's breakup order. At least, that's how it was explained in the mainstream media. Microsoft was ruled an illegal monopoly by the original court, and that ruling was upheld by the appeals court. The only issue was what remedies should be applied: Jackson wanted to break up the company according to antitrust law, the appeals court rescinded that order and imposed lesser sanctions, which have apparently had little effect on Microsoft's behavior. Improprieties or not, history will probably show that Jackson was right.
... just ask the antitrust folks at the DOJ. They were pretty torqued off about the whole thing, since all their good work went for naught.
I don't know about "the fundamental sanctity of Windows", whatever that means, but the reality is that Microsoft was taken to court over multiple antitrust violations, perpetrated over decades, involving multiple corporate customers and competitors, and billions of dollars. The company was convicted of those illegalities, and was then let off the hook. Say what you will, Microsoft got a free get-out-of-jail card
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That's a part of reality. Another part is that MS forged evidence in court and wasn't disciplined for it. (Remember the fake video?)
So even under the Jackson court MS was being given an insane amount of leeway.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.