EU Launches Yet Another Antitrust Probe Into Microsoft

Connor writes "The EU has announced a new wide-ranging antitrust probe into Microsoft's practices of bundling software with Windows, as well as whether its products interoperate sufficiently with competitors' products. 'The first area of investigation will concern interoperability of some of Microsoft's products, including Office 2007, the .NET Framework, and some of Microsoft's server products.' The other prong of the investigation is a response to Opera's antitrust complaint, but will look at other products, too. 'The Commission will also look at desktop search and Windows Live as well in addition to other products. The EC says that its investigation will "focus on allegations that a range of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating system."'"

Comments

Another one?

[calebt3]

Can anybody tell me what MS has actually been forced to do as a result of anti-trust lawsuits? I don't mean what they have been told to do but rather what they were forced to follow through with. IIRC, they still haven't paid a hefty fine imposed by the EU a long time ago.

Re:Another one?

[Scarblac]

They paid about 500 million euro in 2004, while they were still appealing the decision. Their last appeal was turned down last year.

Also, they made available the specs for the SMB protocol, which the Samba team bought (for about $14k).

Re:Another one?

[KokorHekkus]

The 2003 fine was paid during 2004 (http://www.news.com/2100-1014_3-5255715.html). The other additional fines most likely have been as well since Microsoft does have a business presence in Europe via Microsoft EMEA located in Ireland I belive (EMEA stands for Europe, Middle-East, Africa). Should the boardmembers refuse to pay then that would land them in court and result in possible personal punishments. No sane business professional would do that no matter how many chairs are thrown on the other side of the atlantic.

Re:Another one?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is such a crock of you know what.

I disagree.

The EU constantly picks on Microsoft because it's a company we love to hate and they have deep pockets.

No they prosecute MS because MS constantly breaks the law and other companies complain to them, knowing the US courts have been paid off.

What about Apple? I mean, isn't SpotLight "bundled" as part of Leopard?

Sure it is, but "bundling" isn't illegal in and of itself. Leveraging a monopoly in one market into another market is illegal and if you have a monopoly, bundling is one way to do it. Apple doesn't even compete in the desktop OS market, since they refuse to sell OS X to Dell or any other OEM. Apple does compete in the "desktop computer system" market against Dell and HP and Sony, but they certainly don't have a monopoly there, so there is no way such bundling can be illegal.

Why aren't they filing probes against an even bigger brother??

That shows what you know. The EU does have an ongoing probe against Apple, not for their OS since it is not a monopoly, but with regards to their iPod line, which at 70% is close to being a monopoly on portable digital music players. If they decide Apple has enough influence, they will charge Apple for bundling the iTunes software with iPods and for tying it to the iTunes store.

The EU investigates lots of companies for antitrust abuse. If you her about MS being charged more often their are two reasons, one it is more likely to be reported in the news sites you read, and two, MS has built their entire business model on breaking antitrust law and hoping the fines are smaller than the money it makes them.

Waiting for the diplomats.

[seeker_1us]

How long is it going to be before Bush sends US diplomats to intervene on Microsoft's behalf again?

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[taniwha]

nothing - so long as in the process you are not leveraging a monopoly - the problem isn't including apps, it's using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors

Re:The World

[BrentH]

Damn, does the FUD never end? A small search on Google demonstrates that the EU fines domesitc industries at least as much as foreign ones (I read the official numbers ones, can't find the source now, but most 'income' was from domestic corporations). Just because Spanish Telecom, Fujifilm and Siemens don't reach the/your news, doesn't mean they're fined hundreds of millions of euros.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[themacks]

Have you ever tried to uninstall IE? or WMP? Its rather difficult, pretty much locked in. It would be acceptable if OEMs could select what software to include. Instead of being forced to use the Microsoft version. Thats how they use their monopoly.

Re:I don't get it...

[howlingmadhowie]

opera is a norwegian company. norway is not a part of the eu

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.

Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.

Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.

That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.

Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.

Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.

Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.

MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.

Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;

No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?

The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.

Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.

In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.

It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.

Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.