Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Threatened With Fines By EU Again
ukhackster writes "The EC is threatening Microsoft with yet more fines. This time, it's over the interoperability protocols that Microsoft has been ordered to open up to its rivals. The EC has examined 1,500 pages of information about the protocols, and concluded that they 'lack significant innovation'. This is pretty damning for both Microsoft and the patent system, as it has been awarded 36 patents covering this technology and has another 37 pending. Could this encourage someone like the EFF to start pushing to get these patents overturned? The EU has a FAQ about this issue, containing additional details on the subject.
It seems scarcely a week goes by where they dont fine someone or threaten someone else for doing business on "their" turf. They talk of anti competitiveness, but i think much of it is in reality clandestine protectionism.
Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with tyranny.
You've got it backwards. A government forcing a private entity to do business in a certain way is tyranny. A company producing a product that you don't like is free enterprise.
I don't respond to AC's.
The other issue I had with their claim that prices are unreasonable. If I develop a patented technology, I should be allowed to price it anyway I like. You could argue that this is modified since MS is a monopoly but what if I become a monopoly thats been convicted of unfair trade practices. But what if I got a monopoly through fair dealing - the competition just wasn't good enough? Can the EC dictate what I should price my products at so as to help my failing competition out? Microsoft rejected the EC statements, claiming that it had been fair in setting the protocol prices, and an analysis had found the proposed prices "were at least 30 percent below the market rate for comparable technology". This at least is a quantifiable statement. Look at the comparable technology and if its not priced below it then perhaps they are being unreasonable.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
I'm just asking for trouble... But I'm convinced the EU keeps coming down on Microsoft for no other reason than because it's an American company who's dominant in a particular segment. If Microsoft were a European company not only would we not be seeing this legal action, we'd see Europe going out of it's way to protect Microsoft. They do it in other industries, why wouldn't they do the same here? Microsoft certainly is only one of quite a few American companies dealing with these sorts of problems in Europe.
In inevitably any nation is going to protect the interests of it's own companies, it's just that some nations take it to more of an extreme than other nations. Resentment towards American corporations is a lot stronger than many realize. I'm not going to get into details, but more than once I've experienced it first hand.
What in the hell is wrong with Microsoft charging whatever it wants for it's licenses? If companies aren't happy with the pricing they're free to go with a competitor or develop their own protocols. Perhaps the patents shouldn't have been awarded. If they lack sufficient innovation as is claimed why were the patents even awarded?
To be honest, I think this sort of action runs the risk of hindering innovation for one reason. The problem I see emerging however, is that once any company finds it's going to be too much of a challenge to be competitive all they have to do is claim the competitor is being anti-competitive.
I'm not saying all action against Microsoft is unjustified. It's absolutely necessary for the government to sometimes get involved. But I think there's a huge risk of companies using this sort of thing as a crutch. And when it comes to doing business internationally it's an even larger threat.