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.
Exactly.
This is the EU desperately looking for some reason, any reason, to levy a hefty fine, not so much for the revenue, but to show how "tough" they are. This is a joke. Fining someone because you don't think their patents are innovative? The EU is really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Here is the sum of the comments for the post... Good we hate microsoft bad stuff to microsoft is good stuff.
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
"I think EU doesn't like MS too much nowadays"
/. does or should know this [insert inert joke and followup insert joke here]). Becuase of that purposeful restructuring based on "safety," EU-based companies suddenly not only lacked competitors in the marketplace, but were given a leg up on what the new standards were, if only through priority communication (shhh, we're changing the standards on bumpers, but we're only telling our companies now, and releasing the official specs 6 months from now to appear fair, shhhh!).
/. will see this a certain way but miss the overall picture of what the EU has become known for practicing in business circles.
You mispelled US. The has been targetting US companies and products for years with new regulations; that is their right as an economic power, but it seems more and more to be pointedly as a competitive advantage in the home court.
And frankly, I don't see how this helps them really. The costs will be passed onto their countries, and of course EUers will simply blame big corporations for the higher prices or more limited products.
iow, not to be confused with MS being synonymous with the US, but that the EU has been targetting US companies for some time now. They changed their regulations to push the entire slate of US product lines to be retested and reinvented, so that the EU-based companies could get a leg up during the dirth of availability during that revamping to meet compliance--they did this with cosmetics, which is a huge industry (not that the typical
I don't doubt that MS has issues with compliance with EU laws and regulations, or that their attitude is arrogant, but I do doubt the whole story is being told; the question is whether enforcement is being US-centric. inmsho, the EU has found a way around tariffs, and that's by screwing with the regs.
Frankly, if I were a US politician, I'd be messing with US regs to do the same to the EU, so that this crap stops; go after their pharm companies and see if this shit stops.
"But honestly, aren't they right?"
Maybe. But when their enforcement or implementation plays favoritism, it's difficult to say, esp. when their intent is to circumvent fair trade and treaties with stringent favoritism regs. The anti-US and anti-MS sentiment that plays on
Thus, MS ends up in a difficult position that most companies that have met this issue with the EU have run into--they can't take their marbles and go home and lose out on the market. That would allow wholesale market penetration by competitors. But they don't want to reveal what seems ought to be protected under international patent law. Revealing it may keep them in the market, but be counterbalanced against worldwide implementation by competitors. What they are playing now is rather smart--stay in the middle, and pass on fines to the customer until some besides them cries uncle; it's not like MS's reputation is going to be hurt anyways by those gunning for them, since they're already a marked target.
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.
Once again I must think to myself, who the hell gives a DAMN about the EU? The Europeans should be glad we've been considerate enough in the past to give any help to them.