Microsoft's Price Fixing Penalty, 9M Euros

freakxx writes "Microsoft has been slapped with a fine of 9 million Euros by German regulators over illegally fixing the price of its Office-suite in an anti-competitive manner during a retail-promotion fair. Microsoft has accepted the fine and decided not to take this issue to any higher level."

Comments

small change...

[smoatigah]

Thats going to make a huge dent that is...

Re:small change...

[furby076]

This is a huge dent. Let's say if they didn't price fix they would sell their product at $100, but after price fixing they sell their product at $25. Their additional profit is $25/unit. So paying 9 mil Euros will put a huge dent into that additional profit if not take it out completely. Remember we are talking about a local subsidiary of MS, not MS corporate home. If MS let's them shoulder the burden of that penalty it would be heavy.

Though I am wondering how they are doing price fixing. If they have a suggested retail price on the box that does not fall under price fixing. Stores are not obligated to sell at those prices but historically stores are given some kind of preferential treatement (e.g. becoming an authorized dealer) for selling at the suggested price. The other upside is that Store A doesn't price gouge itself to be better priced then Store B. That's not price fixing. So going by

Microsoft has influenced the resale price of the software package--Office Home & Student 2007--in an anticompetitive manner

this must not lead to a form of coordination where the supplier actively tries to coordinate the pricing activities of the retailer and thus retailer and supplier agree on future actions of the retailer. I

Dude is making wind to get some brownie points (works great on /.). In all honesty setting a suggested retail price != price fixing. Again, if anyone here believes that they may want to sue every company that produces a product with a price attacked to the packaging from the manufacturer.
BTW i highlighted the "anticompetitive manner" it doesnt' state against what. Anti-competitive against Open Office? I doubt that. Anticompetitive against other MS Office retailers? Why would corporate do that? They don't care what the retailers sell it at as long as they get their money for each box sold (which they set the price). It's popular and easy to slam MS because it's been done before. The number 1 company in a given market is always viewed as the evil of the world. Since they have tons of money it's "OK" to sue.

On a side note I find fault with statements like this

Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,

So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued? Even if I didn't do anything wrong I am supposed to be punished because everyone loves my product? The American dream (or any other countries dream) being torn down one lawsuit at a time. I feel that Russia will sue because getting 9 mil euros is an easy way to increase a countries income.

Re:small change...

[GameMaster]

It may not look like much, but when you convert it from Euros to US Dollars it's something like $1.3 billion. ;-)

Re:small change...

[Tuoqui]

I agree, they've probably made more than $9 million price fixing.

Re:small change...

[Kynde]

>> Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,
>
> So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?

You create a one-hit-wonder, then perhaps no. But you dominate a market quite a while, regardless of how superior your product is, then yes, you should be subject to scrutiny. Not outright sued ofcourse, the gp never said that.

There is a good goddamn reason we have antitrust laws. It's just that now that the companies have gone so global that the countries into which they roll in the profits too seldom tend to go after them.

Re:small change...

[A. B3ttik]

Care to explain _how_?

What competitor are they undercutting? Open office?

Re:small change...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?

You don't like it? Okay, we'll make a deal. We'll exempt you from antitrust laws, giving you the freedom to monopolise as you wish. On the other hand, we'll also withdraw the protection of copyright and trademark law (which allowed you to become a monopoly in the first place) from you, giving your competitors the freedom to produce duplicates of your product, and to give them the same name as your original version. Sound fair?

Re:small change...

[Bearhouse]

You started well, but faded...

Yes, it's a significant fine, and should make the Ms boys take notice and change, as they say they will in the article.

Also, FTA, "employees of Microsoft and the retailer in question had agreed on at least two occasions on the resale price of the software package"

Urm, that's what they were hit for; illegal price fixing. Of course, you could argue that such things go on al the time, and are perhaps of themselves not particularly evil, but that's not the point: they're illegal, so if you're a big MNC and you get caught, you're gonna take a big hit. As you should.

Now that ast bit...hmmm..nobody 'must have' IE and/or WMP bundled with their machine. Compelling alternatives exist. Unfortunately, by their past practises Microsoft have shown themselves to be rather too aggressive in their exploitation of their quasi-monopoly. Therefore it is reasonable to supervise them more closely. Compare with Intel - they are just as dominant, but are much more careful about stuff like this and consequently have far fewer problems.

Re:small change...

[digitalunity]

You hit the nail on the head. There's a reason the EU is being more proactive with antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, and that is merely because MS is a strategic global resource for the US and a huge profit generator.

With MS being in the US, the US can dictate to an extent how certain MS operating system features work via legislation, and thus they can define how the world uses their PC's. As a specific example, I see trusted computing modules being legislatively required within 10 years. Already vast numbers of computers have TPM modules.

Certainly they have important uses, even in Open Source. TPM could make OSS voting machines a hell of a lot more secure than they are now. However, it could be a trojan horse in the future - designed to turn your PC into a media console machine at the will of the media conglomerates, advertisers and Microsoft.

Sure, this is all speculation. I think the important key here is that a monoculture in the consumer computing realm is destructive and only the foreign nations are willing to do something about it.

Re:small change...

[interstellar_donkey]

They lose money on every product sold, no matter what. They make money by selling a lot of them (volume!)

Re:small change...

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont know what cuurency converter that you are using but my calculations
  come out to be 11,994,897.00. quite the far cry from a billion as you stated

Re:small change...

[Penguinoflight]

Microsoft has influenced the resale price of the software package--Office Home & Student 2007--in an anticompetitive manner

The key here is Microsoft's multiple editions of the same software. Providing the same piece of software to multiple markets while pricing each market differently sounds a lot like price fixing to me.
Consider this: Office is unsurprisingly a product that is targeted for Offices. Other companies could produce a set of non-enterprise editing software and price it appropriately, for approximately the same that Microsoft charges for their student editions. Unfortunately for any would-be competitors the market is locked out; nobody is going to buy non-enterprise software when they can get enterprise for the same price, plus it's the same thing they're already using at work.

As near as I can tell, there is no requirement that another market force is already hurting from your practices to be anti-competitive. Merely stopping a potential market should be enough.

Re:small change...

[Bert64]

They don't lose money on selling software products...
Any and all development costs have already been covered, leaving only the duplication costs which are virtually nothing... They could sell for $1 and still make a profit. How do you think professional piracy groups who only have duplication costs (higher duplication costs than ms due to economies of scale) make money?

Re:small change...

[Atrox666]

The question that needs to be asked is will this fine act as a deterrent and convince Microsoft (and onlookers) that swindling their customers is bad for business.

I would say no. They will continue to find ways to get one over on the customer and on the whole they will make more money by doing so. It's nice to see them lose a battle but they are clearly winning the war.

Finding a sleazier way to do things is what passes for innovation at Microsoft and this will hardly stop them.

Re:small change...

[furby076]

If you want price fixing look at car dealerships. Go to Wal-mart...every wal-mart has the same prices. Go to gas stations. Go buy an X-box games.

Having a product, and subsequent versions of that, which people utilize is not a monopoly. To punish a company for making a successful product is wrong - it makes companies not want to create such products. Monopoly means no other options - but there are other options. There are other OS there are other office productivity software. The market helped make MS the dominant producer.

You state that IE and WMP should not be bundled in with their machine - that is your opinion...mine is different. If I didn't have IE built into my computer how was I supposed to go to Mozilla's website and download firefox? Or should I have been forced to grab an AOL CD and install their crap-ware on my computer? If I didn't have WMP pre-installed on my computer how was I going to listen to music? Install Real player and all the spyware that came with it? It still boggles my mind that MS "should" be forced to install their competitors products into their software. How about Red Hat be forced to install IE or WMP? Or Mac be forced to use MS Paint and MS Office instead of their own version? Every OS has their preferred versions. Nobody is complaining about those products. Let's take this into other markets. How about BMW be forced to install Ford's dashboard? Hyndai must now install lamborghini tires.

What MS did wrong, and it was done a LONG time ago so we need to stop beating the "anti-trust" drums like they do this everyday, is force retailers to use their products. Geez this didn't happen last week, this happend a decade ago. At some point it gets old.

Re:small change...

[V!NCENT]

It's anti-competitive because practises like these whiped out every single retail competitor out there and blocks new opportunities for possible future competitors to enter the market.

Microsoft isn't exactly a stupid company.

Re:small change...

[somersault]

Even if I didn't do anything wrong I am supposed to be punished because everyone loves my product?

Do you seriously know anyone who "loves" Windows? I hear people complaining about how they want to throw their computer across the room or how they are "rubbish with computers", but not many who say "wow, I love how intuitive this Control Panel/window manager is!".

Perhaps you don't quite understand what a "monopoly" is, or why it is bad for the consumer. It's like saying that people in a communist regime where everyone is given daily bread and water rations must really love bread and water if that's the only thing they ever eat. Or imagine that each brand of car could only run when kept supplied with the manufacturer's own brand of fuel and oil - whoever had the best fueling infrastructure would win. Microsoft currently has the best "infrastructure" simply because they got in there first, so many business applications and games are heavily reliant on Windows rather than the more open platforms that have become available as the world of personal computing has matured. As more software companies start to make their software available on different OSes or move applications into the browser etc, we'll see what people really "love".

Re:small change...

[DinDaddy]

Not only that, but "semi-colon minus right parenthesis" makes NO sense at all!

Re:small change...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want price fixing look at car dealerships. Go to Wal-mart...every wal-mart has the same prices.

It's even worse: you may not believe this, but if you walk into the same store twice it has the same prices!!!!

Re:small change...

[MightyMartian]

I think the term we would normally use is "predatory pricing". When you're a huge corporation, you can afford to sell products below cost to knock out competitors. I mean, that's the whole point of selling below cost.

In the case of Office, it's even more evil, because I suspect that the cost of development and production is far below what you would even pay for the Pro versions.

The real problem here is that Microsoft's practices over the last two decades have all but eliminated its commercial office suite software rivals in the Windows market. OpenOffice isn't quite there yet, but within the next couple of years, I think it will probably reach a point where penetration is possible.

In fact, I'm not sure why someone hasn't put together a nice OpenOffice box to put in stores. Wouldn't it be funny to see Office 2007 Student edition for $140 next to OpenOffice 3 for, say, $20 (to cover packaging and media, plus a bit for store profit).

Re:small change...

[neongrau]

Awesome! After that many posts the first one that seems to have understood for what MS was fined.

Their wrongdoing was to give a single retailer an unfair advantage over all other retailers who could have made similar cheap bundle offerings.

Not because they like milking the MS cow. It's the law in the germany. MS surely has enough lawyers, so they should've known better.

The risk seemed low. They had been caught. MS swallowed the fine.

End of story.

Re:small change...

[Nakarti]

I was thinking something similar to you, and that brought to mind an idea...
Microsoft should sell their OS, barebones with no utilities, at a reduced price(say $25 off)
Then they should sell a Microsoft Basic User CD with IE, WMP, WMM, Defender, Wordpad(it's a word processor!,) etc for $40
And they should sell a bundle; OS and Basic User software for the current price of the OS.

AND, they should allow resellers to sell the bare OS along with their own user bundle.
It will be great, just like Linux distributions, but with a paid-for core OS!!

Re:small change...

[furby076]

I was thinking something similar to you, and that brought to mind an idea... Microsoft should sell their OS, barebones with no utilities, at a reduced price(say $25 off) Then they should sell a Microsoft Basic User CD with IE, WMP, WMM, Defender, Wordpad(it's a word processor!,) etc for $40 And they should sell a bundle; OS and Basic User software for the current price of the OS. AND, they should allow resellers to sell the bare OS along with their own user bundle. It will be great, just like Linux distributions, but with a paid-for core OS!!

Your idea is forward thinking, but a person like me will end up paying $15 more for stuff that I already get today. There are a lot of people like that. Most people want IE, WMP, WM, Defender, Wordpad, etc pre-built.

BTW for any protection (defender, firewall, etc I would think that should be basic - do we really want more people with worms on their computers)?

Another issue, if MS offers the "bundle" version someone will say "that's a monopoly, why don't they offer a version with FireFox?". There is always someone who will complain and there is always someone who will make enough noise to an uninformed judge. In all honesty if someone doesn't like Windows they can buy a computer without an OS. If Dell doesn't offer computers without an OS don't shop at dell. I bought my computer from a place and they asked me which OS I wanted. They asked if I wanted XP, Vista, Linux, or clean. My choice, not Uncle Sam's choice. Since when did we want Uncle Sam to tell stores what they should or should not sell? Maybe Uncle Sam should tell stores they are not allowed to sell GTA, or any other game that is rated higher then G. See where we are heading? These people who think they have no choice must be shopping at Dell. Well that's Dell's perogative to sell only Windows (doesn't Dell offer Linux these days?)

Considering how much of a marketshare FireFox has, and they have publically said they don't want the help of the gov't, and how profitable Apple is, this monopoly stuff really only exists in people's minds. Really, there aren't any monopolies anymore. Hell, you don't like US gov't...move to England, canada, mexico, wherever. You don't like democracies... move to China, Cuba, wherever. You don't like gov'ts at all...move to Brazil, live in the jungle - by yourself - and avoid human contact. The closest thing we have to a monopoly these days are the oil companies - and they have 100% price fixing - and they publicize it.

Re:small change...

[DeskLazer]

How about Red Hat be forced to install IE or WMP? Or Mac be forced to use MS Paint and MS Office instead of their own version? Every OS has their preferred versions. Nobody is complaining about those products. Let's take this into other markets. How about BMW be forced to install Ford's dashboard? Hyndai must now install lamborghini tires.

this is probably one of the most relevant posts I've seen here on /. regarding this debate. there are a few points that were not considered, like that if IE wasn't bundled, the EU was supposed to have them include an install option for browsers like chrome and firefox and opera or something, but why should those get picked over any others? you can't please everyone. I for one am glad those things are bundled, and I can choose not to use them [which I decided on my own].

I'm definitely into using FOSS, but seriously, when you buy a product, you have to realize that you can utilize those options, or you can choose not to. it shouldn't be forced upon the people that made the product.

Re:small change...

[toriver]

Plus, all prices are in the same currency! There is no option in U.S. stores to use Euro or Japanese Yen. It is an outrage! U.S. Mint has a monopoly!

Re:small change...

[jbengt]

Having a product, and subsequent versions of that, which people utilize is not a monopoly

Obviously.

To punish a company for making a successful product is wrong - it makes companies want to figure out how to avoid punishment

There, fixed that for you.

The market helped make MS the dominant producer.

Go back and learn some PC history. It was the IBM monopoly that gave MS its' early edge, and MS did use illegal means to leverage that leg up into a OS and office suite monopoly.

If I didn't have IE built into my computer how was I supposed to go to Mozilla's website and download firefox?

Right, because it's impossible for the retailer to bundle a browser other than IE.

If I didn't have WMP pre-installed on my computer how was I going to listen to music?

Again, it would be perfectly reasonable for computer sellers to bundle multiple non-MS utilities, including a music player - except that Microsoft has often put barriers in their way making it impractical for them to do so.

What MS did wrong, and it was done a LONG time ago . . .

For suitably recent definitions of "Long Ago", like last year at ISO.

Re:small change...

[perryizgr8]

In fact, I'm not sure why someone hasn't put together a nice OpenOffice box to put in stores. Wouldn't it be funny to see Office 2007 Student edition for $140 next to OpenOffice 3 for, say, $20 (to cover packaging and media, plus a bit for store profit).

maybe because openoffice is crap??
about six months ago, career launcher, an mba entrance coaching institute with branches all over india, changed all their pcs from win xp to edubuntu. because many of them were running pirated versions.
i and my friends were very excited because we always wanted ubuntu adoption to increase. but we didn't know how bad openoffice is.
from the next day, we were unable to have a proper presentation in our class for the next 5-10 days.
because openoffice on ubuntu fucks up when you click slide show. then they bought new computers for the classes with win vista and office07(leaving the other pcs used in admin with ubuntu).

Re:small change...

[thetoadwarrior]

You're right opinions are different and I don't want IE or WMP and I'm not mentally incompetent so I know how to get Firefox without IE. So where's my choice? That's all I want.

Re:small change...

[hot soldering iron]

You sound like my kids,"That happened last year. That's ancient history!" You're being a model example of the consumer with no memory. "We fucked 'em hard last Christmas shopping season, but they have no memory so we'll do it again this year! More money!"

If you forget your history, you're doomed to repeat it. And not the good parts.

Re:small change...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want price fixing look at car dealerships.

No one leaves the car analogy vortex!</python>

Individual car sales carry a great deal more cost, and the factory-authorized but independent-business dealers carry much more risk per unit. It's not the same model as the relatively tiny & high-volume retail sales of your other examples at all. The variables between dealerships per unit are typically hundreds of dollars and sometimes thousands. This leaves opportunities for gouging, but a fixed price system isn't introduced by the manufacturers because it would kill off about half of their dealer network. Sales would fall because their vehicles won't be available locally for most of the population. Figure how much your car will cost over a fixed price if you have to go to the big population centers not just to shop, but for all return service engagements.

Interestingly enough, the tipping point for products that can be retailed for fixed cost is products that can be transported by car. Anything larger and the transport factor gets serious enough to require localized pricing.

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

The EU is just fining Microsoft like they fine all successful American companies, like:
Microsoft
Visa
American Express
Coca-Cola
Chrysler
Delta Airlines
Oracle
Texas Instruments
Qualcomm
Intel
Apple

Re:small change...

[thetoadwarrior]

Your mom dropped you on your head as a child, didn't she?

Re:small change...

[baboo_jackal]

Heh. Good little Socialists. Suck on the teat of productive free enterprise until it shrivels up. But the EU isn't the only game in town anymore, now that we've got Obama and friends lining up to get their share.

Re:small change...

[getclear]

9 million Euros = 12.0177 million U.S. dollars Please, if you are going to make stuff up, preface your posts with "I may not know what I am talking about, but..."

Re:small change...

[drsquare]

Maybe successful American companies should follow the law then? Perhaps the problem is that US companies are so used to being able to do whatever they want with nothing more than a slap on the wrist by the US government, they just can't understand why other countries don't allow them to break the law with impunity.

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

Or perhaps the EC is just retarded, as they have shown themselves to be.

Re:small change...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Though I am wondering how they are doing price fixing. If they have a suggested retail price on the box that does not fall under price fixing.

They paid a retailer to set a particular pice for resold versions of their software, undermining the ability for the free market to decide that price through supply and demand.

In all honesty setting a suggested retail price != price fixing.

It is if you're a monopolist paying them to do it.

BTW i highlighted the "anticompetitive manner" it doesnt' state against what.

Other retailers and companies selling OS's and related products.

They don't care what the retailers sell it at as long as they get their money for each box sold (which they set the price).

Except MS's monopoly influence allows them to charge more than a free market would allow, so they are motivated to spend money to maintain that monopoly.

The number 1 company in a given market is always viewed as the evil of the world.

No it isn't. Often the number one company in a market obeys the law and while it might not be considered benevolent, it is at least not criminal and undermining the free market. When was the last time you heard about the evils of Symbian from a smart phone user?

Since they have tons of money it's "OK" to sue.

Sue? This is application of criminal law, not a lawsuit. They broke the law and were charged and convicted. They knew the law beforehand and everyone else has to obey it. How do you excuse such criminal acts?

On a side note I find fault with statements like this

Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,

I suspect that's because you don't understand antitrust law at all.

So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?

No, if you create a product everyone must have you actions in other markets are scrutinized because controlling such a product is power, which can and is abused in illegal ways. Once again, antitrust law is just a category of law. It's not being sued in a civil case.

Even if I didn't do anything wrong I am supposed to be punished because everyone loves my product?

No one is punished for having a successful product. They're punished if you use a successful market to win market share in other markets, despite not necessarily having the best or cheapest product in those markets. I suggest you find out what antitrust law is before continuing to complain about it. You're equating being scrutinized with being punished. Guess what, all sorts of companies with a lot of power are scrutinized. Russia looks more closely at companies with overwhelming market share in a market, because that power can be used to break the law. They also look more closely at companies that manufacture large quantities of explosives, because those stockpiles can be used to break the law. Scrutiny is not punishment.

The American dream (or any other countries dream) being torn down one lawsuit at a time.

I'll say it one more time. This is NOT a lawsuit. You're right, about the old American dream though. It used to be gain power in one market and leverage it into an empire by undermining every other market as a robber baron. See Ma Bell, or Standard Oil for examples. That's why we made antitrust laws and why every other country did too. Because a much more productive dream is work hard and make the best product for the best price to win that market. Not win that market, then undermine all other markets with inferior products while the people working hard to make the best and cheapes

Re:small change...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You hit the nail on the head. There's a reason the EU is being more proactive with antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, and that is merely because MS is a strategic global resource for the US and a huge profit generator.

Do you have some evidence that the EU goes after foreign companies more often or more aggressively than EU companies with regards to antitrust?

With MS being in the US, the US can dictate to an extent how certain MS operating system features work via legislation...

Umm, the US can't even enforce our own laws against MS because they donate too much money to our politicians and said politicians undermine our courts.

Sure, this is all speculation. I think the important key here is that a monoculture in the consumer computing realm is destructive and only the foreign nations are willing to do something about it.

It's just motivation on part of those enforcing the law. The EU commission is hard to bribe and you can't contribute to their election funds because they don't have them. We could do the same in the US if we'd just make it illegal for anyone other than an individual to donate any money to election funds, effectively making corporate lobbying illegal.

Re:small change...

[supernova_hq]

I'm glad that where you live there are places you can buy machines without windows. Up here (Canada), the only way to get one is online and that usually means you have both a currency exchange AND international shipping. To get a comparable laptop without windows, you end up paying about 50% more than the windows version.

Re:small change...

[supernova_hq]

As impossible as it sounds, there ARE people who "love" windows. I've known a few professional network admins that would never even touch a *nix system.

Mind you, I would never trust either of them with my machine, but I'm just saying that they DO exist.

Disclaimer: Proud Linux user who ends up running into WAY too many windows users.

Re:small change...

[Anonymous Coward]

As more software companies start to make their software available on different OSes or move applications into the browser etc, we'll see what people really "love".

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I can already venture a guess as to what they DON'T love - "change". Yes, yes, Obama and whatnot, but I think you'll find that when people have to do a significant amount of work because of change, the vast majority cop-out and stick with what they know. Most of the people who are change-centric (slashdot types amongst these, I guess "curious" is a nice way to put it) have already researched their options, and acted appropriately. Although a lot of the problem is ignorance (Auntie Tillie has never even heard of this "Youbanto", is like like "The Youtubes"?), I suspect their ignorance is a result of apathy (well, why SHOULD Aunt Tillie care about these "computers" - she's gotten along fine without them before, thankyou-very-much), which will only continue as Microsoft loses dominance. In other words, Microsoft will always have the lazy and the apathetic on their side, and those people are the most common people around.

Re:small change...

[supernova_hq]

I've never had that problem. What types of files were you trying to use?

I've seen OpenOffice in linux mess up presentations created in Microsoft Office, but there are 2 reasons for that:

• Missing fonts (you wouldn't believe how much trouble that causes)
• MS Office doesn't even save their files according to their own standards

Re:small change...

[Daengbo]

Or even more recently, creating an implementation of ODF which isn't interoperable.

Re:small change...

[Richard_at_work]

Probably the EU getting into the US Department Of Justices act...

2007 - British Airways, $300m
2008 - Air France and KLM, Cathay Pacific, Dutch airline Martinair and Scandinavia's SAS, $504m
2008 - JAL, $110m
2009 - LAN Cargo, $88m
2009 - Aerolinhas Brasileiras SA (ABSA), $21m

I could provide significantly more examples, if you wish?

Re:small change...

[xaxa]

The EU is just fining Microsoft like they fine all successful American companies

They fine European companies too, but it probably doesn't make it into the USA news.

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

You do realize that 3 of those 5 aren't European, right?

Re:small change...

[Richard_at_work]

You do realise that that doesn't matter, right? The DoJ regularly fines non-American companies, totaling billions of dollars a year - its a perfect example of why claiming that the EU are being malicious when doing the same thing is a pile of crap.

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

That's a strawman argument and you know it. It isn't the fact that the EC or the DoJ can and does file cases against foreign companies that do business within their jurisdiction. It's the fact that the EC has an abnormally high percentage of their cases (In both number of cases, the percentage of guilty verdicts, and the amount of fines) towards American companies specifically. The cases the EC files are typically malicious, baseless or highly subjective in nature, and against American companies. That does matter.

Considering the EU only comprises 30% of Microsoft's revenue, and supposedly how many EU countries are dictating they don't/can't use commercial products (lol, how "free" is a country who has that dictated to them), I can't wait for the EU market to shrink to such a small amount that it's no longer worth it to Microsoft to have an official presence there. Then the EU can try sucking on it's own teet for a while and see how far that gets you.

Re:small change...

[Richard_at_work]

People seem to misuse the term 'strawman argument' these days, and generally they are extremely bad at it.

No, my argument is not a strawman, it purposefully outlines that the DoJ does not shy away from fining foreign companies, and that those actions are far from malicious. My argument is not constructed specifically for the purpose of being destroyed later in my own comment. Hence it is not a strawman.

In 30 minutes of research, I can find no evidence for your supposition that the EU are maclicious toward American companies, especially considering they levied the biggest fine given to a private company to date against an European firm (price fixing in the automobile glass industry), while the largest fines the US DoJ have issued have been against foreign companies. I can also find no evidence that American companies make up a statistically significant number or value of fines given in the past 15 years above the average.

However, let us play your game on your rules for the moment, and see just how many European companies I can cherrypick in order for it to seem like the DoJ are being malicious against European companies, shall we?

F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd, 1999, $500m
Air France-KLM, June 2008, $350m
British Airways, 2007, $300m
BASF AG, 1999, $225m
Infineon Technologies AG, 2004, $160m
SGL Carbon AG, 1999, $135m
Cargolux, 2009, $119m
Bayer AG,September 2004, $66m
Bilhar International Establishment, 2002, $54m
ABB Middle East & Africa Participations AG, 2001, $53m
Haarmann & Reimer Corp, 1997, $50m
SAS, June 2008, $50m
HeereMac v.o.f., 1998, $49m
Odfjell Seachem AS, 2003, $43m
Martinair, June 2008, $42m
Hoechst AG, 1999, $36m
Bayer Corporation, 2004, $33m
Philipp Holzmann AG, 2000, $30m
Arteva Specialties, 2003, $29m
Statoil, 2006, $21m
Jo Tankers, B.V., 2004, $20m
Dockwise N.V., 1998, $15m

Oh my, the DoJ are being malicious against European companies! How naughty and evil of them...

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

It's a perfect example of a strawman argument.
<quote>
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

      1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
      2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context &#226;&#8364;" i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
      3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
      4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
      5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
</quote>

My position was that the EC is going after an unusually large number of American companies, and when doing so, it has an unusually large conviction rate, of which lands some of the highest fines. You ignored that position, and tried to say that because the DoJ has sued at least one foreign company that the EC can't possibly be specifically targeting American companies, and then went on to prove that argument. Sorry, but perhaps you should learn what a strawman argument is. I am going to ignore your bait, as nothing you've said disproves or even helps to disprove my point, even <bold>if</bold> everything you've said is correct.

Re:small change...

[Richard_at_work]

Except my original comment does not follow 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 at all - my original comment was a display to you that the EU were following the DoJs M.O. and going after foreign companies, the only issue with it is that I did not cherry pick examples as you did.

So no, my original argument was not a strawman. Yours, however, could be interpreted as a strawman because of your oversimplication through cherry picking examples.

And you have yet to present one shred of evidence that the EU is malicious in its actions.

Re:small change...

[KingMotley]

Your original comment follows 2.1, again:
My position was that the EC is going after an unusually large number of American companies, and when doing so, it has an unusually large conviction rate, of which lands some of the highest fines. You ignored that position, and tried to say that because the DoJ has sued at least one foreign company that the EC can't possibly be specifically targeting American companies, and then went on to prove that argument. Sorry, but perhaps you should learn what a strawman argument is. I am going to ignore your bait, as nothing you've said disproves or even helps to disprove my point, even <bold>if</bold> everything you've said is correct.

Re:small change...

[badkarmadayaccount]

Mod parent up!

Re:small change...

[V!NCENT]

I haven't had that problem either... What a piece of bull.

You know what's funny? When you upgrade to a higher version of MS Office then your older MS Office documents opens up equally shitty, often shittyer than opening that same document or presentation with the latest OpenOffice.org.

Who knows what the hell it took after a cleanWinXP install to get that beamer working, especially in Vista, but putting only 1/4 of that effort into Ubuntu to get it work? No? What a bunch of retards... Buying Vista pc's says more about them than about Ubuntu and OpenOffice.org -_-'

That's Surprising...

[lag10]

Their motto is usually "pry it from my cold, dead hands" in regards to these fines.

Wonder what's with the change of heart?

Re:That's Surprising...

[joelmax]

They most likely expected the fine and included it into their costs for running the promo. They probably figured that the amount they would make off the promo would probably offset the cost of the fine enough to make it worthwhile.

Re:That's Surprising...

[morgan_greywolf]

Easy. $9 million is not only pocket change to to Microsoft, it's very likely that $9 million < the legal bills to fight it.

They could pay the lawyers > $9 million to fight it, or they can just pay the fine.

Either way, the outcome is the same.

Sometimes you just take the practical way out.

Re:That's Surprising...

[Thanshin]

Probably the closest director payed directly from his pocket money and forgot about it.

"Hey Bob. I'm reading something about a fine in EU. Did you have any problem?"
"Hmmm, Oh! So that's why the hotel was so expensive! I thought I miscounted the girls."

Re:That's Surprising...

[LostCluster]

Likely the fact that the legal effort to challenge the fine would cost more than the fine.

Re:That's Surprising...

[amn108]

1. It would cost them additional finances to battle the decision, and what seals it all is the fact that most likely they would end up being slapped anyway. They knew this was not a battle they could win.

2. You can figure a company of the size of Microsoft by now knows to include and account for consequences of their practices, sucn as being slapped for rigging prices. I.e. like someone else said already, most likely their plan took account of a possible fine and its likely size. They just included it in the 'Likely/Uncertain Expenses' field when planning to rig prices.

Re:That's Surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. It is *not* the legal costs.

Legal fees are regulated in Germany. For a 9 Mill Euro court fight, assuming they use in-house lawyers for their defense, the standard costs (2 "full fees") to get a judgement are just Euro 20912.

Seems MS just sees no chance to win...

Re:That's Surprising...

[timeOday]

And they'll probably pay it off by dumping copies of Windows 98 ME onto German middle schools, valued at MSRP.

Re:That's Surprising...

[lag10]

Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot to mention that in my original post.

Taking this into account, it's surprising that M$ didn't at least make an effort to resist the fine.

Re:That's Surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

they're dead?

AC

Re:That's Surprising...

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah...no.

Legal bills are not "legal fees". Using in-house lawyers doesn't make it magically free. You're just confused, that's all.

It would cost MS more (in various ways, not just legal) to litigate this than pay it, in all likelihood.

Re:That's Surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you may have it wrong as well.

His calculation may be a bit off, but he is definitely not confused.

In Germany, all payment a lawyer may get, as well as court costs, are fixed by law and depend on the amount of money the case is about, as well as how long you fight.

Therefore, court costs are mostly deterministic.

You can find a legal-bill-calculator here (sorry, german only):
http://jurfree.dimbeck.de/KostenRisiko/Kostenrisiko.htm

Pretending that both sides have lawyers and you go through one appeal, I arrive at 303768 Euros and 94 cents.

The costs for the second appeal are in the same ballpark.

That does not include costs for witnesses (3-13 euros/h + travel expenses) and expert witnesses (up to a few thousand euros if the subject matter is utterly complicated).

It is really highly unlikely that you burn more than two or three million euros on a case like this even if you exhaust each and every route of appeal, produce mountains of evidence.

If you get a decision for a case like this, you have usually spent one and a half years in court (approx. 6.3 month trial, 11 month appeal).

Accepting the fine propably means they just don't think they have a chance to win.

Re:That's Surprising...

[RightSaidFred99]

Ahh. I see. You think MS will just go to Germany and hire some fixed-cost lawyers. No.

Doesn't work that way. Nobody cares about Germany's legal customs, MS would have in-house lawyers, and a huge team of people doing a lot of behind the scenes work as well as as German lawyers, and a whole army of other people.

It's cute that you think they would just go to www.getmealawyerschtopp.de, though.

Punishment

[Davemania]

Is 9 million euros really a lot for microsoft? It seems like there are no other action taken against their behavior and MS is just happy to take the fine and move along.

Re:Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Is 9 million euros really a lot for microsoft? It seems like there are no other action taken against their behavior and MS is just happy to take the fine and move along.

Not only is it not a lot for Microsoft, it's probably less than the legal bill would be if they tried to appeal it.

Their options are basically give the money to the EU, or give the money to the lawyers. Why even bother? Either way, you're screwed.

Re:Punishment

[LostCluster]

For a company with a market cap of $174 billion USD 9 million Euros which equals $12 million USD is a drop in the bucket.

Re:Punishment

[amn108]

How about giving money to lawyers AND giving money to EU? They can't win this one. It is not like their lawyers are miracle workers, even though for the salary they are getting, they do get away with a lot of things that are sure to bury everyone else in the same situation.

Re:Punishment

[crmarvin42]

Market cap != Money in the bank.

I agree that this isn't a whole lot of money for MS, but they are not in the "Cash comming out the ears" situation they were in a few years ago. IIRC, when they were trying to buy Yahoo, they were going to have to spend all the cash in the bank and then take out large loans to finance the deal.

Office is still earning money hand over fist, and despite the hoopla, the OS is still making them a lot more money than it's worth. However, the OS wasn't the blaizing success they were expecting, their entertaiment division is hemoraging money, and their 'Live' web resources aren't paying for themselves yet either.

IMHO, they aren't fighting this in part becuase it is a relatively minor fine, but mostly because they don't have money to waste on fighting this for the sake of principle. 5-10 years ago, this would have turned out differently.

Re:Punishment

[javacoder99]

Considering they asked for a bailout?? Perhaps if they ran their business correctly they wouldn't need a bail out. Good OS or bad, it is all really about their business practices that make them evil.

Eurodollar to US Dollar

[LostCluster]

Given the current exchange rate that's roughly $12,000,000 United States Dollars.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I get that in some kind of a useful unit, like numbers of bionic men?

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[mikael_j]

It's called "Euro", not "Eurodollar". Much in the same way that the swedish currency is called "Krona" and not "Kronadollar" or how the currency used in the UK is called "pound" not "pounddollar".

/Mikael

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But eurodollar is actually a concept that exists in banking and predates the euro. They are dollars held in banks outside of the United States. They were instrumental to the establishment of the dollar as the world reserve currency. But with such similar terms it is not hard to see that people become confused.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[InsertWittyNameHere]

In the USA it's called Corona and it's a Mexican beer.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[vishbar]

In fact, Eurodollar has an entirely different meaning.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

Two, of course.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Ragzouken]

This terminology is as sound as a dollarpound.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[GreatBunzinni]

To make matters worse, eurodollars are not nor were they ever euros. Eurodollars are regular, plain US dollars that are deposited outside of the US's jurisdiction and therefore out of the control of the US's central banking system. So I guess someone heard that new term somewhere and didn't had time to know a bit about it before spreading it around. To put it in other words...

  "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

poundcake?

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "Euro", not "Eurodollar". Much in the same way that the swedish currency is called "Krona" and not "Kronadollar" or how the currency used in the UK is called "pound" not "pounddollar". /Mikael

Ok let's really nitpick! Your precious "Euro" and "Krona" values are based on the almighty US Dollar value. So, Eurodollar is actually somewhat accurate.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

It's superior to poundpie.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[phulegart]

The Eurodollar...
"On February 28, 1957, the sum of $800,000 was transferred, creating the first eurodollars. Initially dubbed "Eurbank dollars" after the bank's telex address, they eventually became known as "eurodollars" as such deposits were at first held mostly by European banks and financial institutions." ...predates the Euro...
"The name euro was officially adopted on 16 December 1995.[6] The euro was introduced to world financial markets as an accounting currency on 1 January 1999, replacing the former European Currency Unit (ECU) at a ratio of 1:1. Euro () coins and banknotes entered circulation on 1 January 2002."

So any confusion created by the two names, is strictly the fault of whomever decided on calling the Euro... the Euro. Whomever decided to name that unified currency the "Euro" knew full well there was already a Eurodollar on the books, and had been for going on 40 years. Thus, if the people who created this currency have no problem with the confusion, why do you?

You go on to add the word "dollar" to other currencies, as if someone had just tacked the word "dollar" onto the Euro because they were too ignorant NOT to. You don't even acknowledge the fact that Eurodollar was a word in and of itself before you were born. No one says Pounddollar. Sure, you might hear reference to Pound Sterling... but I've yet to see honest-to-goodness Silver threads in any British pound note. But Pounddollar isn't a word, and no one uses it... because your thinking that the word Eurodollar is just some ignorant use of the word Euro with the word dollar tacked on, is wrong. Did you know what the currency of Australia is? It is also called the Dollar. It is NOT interchangeable with the US Dollar, although they do share a name... well, not interchangeable, without first applying an exchange rate... just like any currency to currency transaction.

But people are not just dollartacking the word dollar onto other dollarwords. That is just dollarwrong. Dollarpeople are not ignorant of the Euro, or too dollarwrapped up in the fact they are Americans and all dollarcurrency is just a dollar in disguise. Sure, dollarpeople might get mixed up because there is the Euro, and there is the Eurodollar. I don't blame them. I blame the idiots that named it the "Euro".

Oh, and a side note, I was thinking of creating a personal transportation device that operates on an 8-legged mode of transportation. I was gonna call it the Cool Automatic Robot-walker... or call it a CAR for short. You don't think there will be any confusion with existing products, do you? I mean, these are both transportation devices...

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[mikael_j]

Very long post but still so wrong. I've heard plenty of young americans call the euro "eurodollar", the same kind of americans who barely remember what celebrities were on MTV last year, much less that the word "eurodollar" has been in use for a long time.

Also, how come 99% (yeah yeah, made up statistics blablabla) of those who say/write "eurodollar" when they mean "euro" are from the US? I can't remember the last time I heard someone from the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, India or another country make that same mistake...

/Mikael

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[DinDaddy]

This is Europe. It would be .454 dollarkilograms.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[phulegart]

Work on your short attention span. You have no idea what a long post is, if you think that my previous post was long.

Sure, many Americans prove their ignorance in referring to the Euro as the Eurodollar. However, your assumption that they are doing this because they assume everything is a dollar and you just add dollar to the end of a currency to make it real.. is just fucked up. You hear people mistakenly call the Euro a Eurodollar, because these same ignorant Americans have heard that term Eurodollar in the mainstream media... probably more often than they ever hear about the Euro. Every American financial program might make mention of the American Dollar in Foreign Markets... which is the Eurodollar.

So then the problem comes for those people, in that they have no idea why some idiots that run international banks would even begin to think that calling one the Euro and the other the Eurodollar would NOT lead to some confusion. These same people who make the mistake... these same young Americans who mistakenly call the Euro something it is not, do not go around tacking the word Dollar onto OTHER currencies, like you STILL SEEM TO THINK. They did not just tack the word Dollar onto the word Euro. They are misusing a term.

Why do so many Americans make this mistake? Like I said, the Eurodollar is a unit of American Currency. We hear about it on the news... flipping channels... etc. It is in the papers, and on blog sites. 569,000 results in a google search for "Eurodollar". Why would people from other countries make this mistake? you STILL labor under the misunderstanding that "Eurodollar" is just some made up word. If you don't like people making this mistake, petition to have the Euro called something else. Petition to have it called something that is not already too close to an American unit of currency. The Eurodollar existed long before the Euro.

Why can't more Americans be properly educated? I dunno. You didn't know that the Eurodollar was a valid currency. I'd call that ignorant. You assumed incorrectly that people are just tacking the word Dollar onto other currencies, and you show MORE ignorance in making that assumption. I'd attend to your own ignorance, before you start making issues with other people's ignorance.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[thetoadwarrior]

WTF is a Eurodollar supposed to be? It's just Euro, spanky.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[rts008]

This is a Eurodollar, and it is not a Euro, buckwheat.

Note that the Eurodollar has been around since the latter 1950's. I noticed that the Euro is the new kid on the block:

The name euro was officially adopted on 16 December 1995.[6] The euro was introduced to world financial markets as an accounting currency on 1 January 1999, replacing the former European Currency Unit (ECU) at a ratio of 1:1. Euro () coins and banknotes entered circulation on 1 January 2002.

[from the wiki link]

Don't get so uppity if you don't know what you are talking about, it made you look foolish this time.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

brewed in the US, with US ingredients..

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[xaxa]

You didn't know that the Eurodollar was a valid currency. I'd call that ignorant.

It isn't a valid currency. It's slang, or a nickname, for US dollars outside the US.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[phulegart]

"Eurodollars are deposits denominated in US dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve.Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the United States, allowing for higher margins. There is nothing "European" about Eurodollar deposits; a US dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Caracas would likewise be deemed Eurodollar deposits. Neither is there any connection with the euro currency. Typically the term is only used for US dollars in European banks, but technically the term could be used for US dollars deposited at any non-US bank account.

More generally, the "euro" prefix can be used to indicate any currency held in a country where it is not the official currency: for example, euroyen or even euroeuro."

Ok. So much for the 'slang' theory then. I mean, it was a nice theory and all, but the term "Eurodollar" is not slang. Or rather, if it is slang, it is slang you can spend, save, deposit, and move around from bank to bank. That's some pretty powerful slang. That is also some pretty well-defined slang. That is also slang that is universal in it's usage. Hmmm.. seems like that "slang" is sounding more and more like an official term. I mean, there is apparently regulation specific to the Eurodollar. Hmm... Regulation that pertains to specific slang? LOL.

At any rate, don't be ignorant. More to the point, don't go out of your way again to PROVE your ignorance.

Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar

[xaxa]

"Eurodollars are deposits denominated in US dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve.Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the United States, allowing for higher margins. There is nothing "European" about Eurodollar deposits; a US dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Caracas would likewise be deemed Eurodollar deposits. Neither is there any connection with the euro currency. Typically the term is only used for US dollars in European banks, but technically the term could be used for US dollars deposited at any non-US bank account."

The bit in bold is the currency. Eurodollars is just a word for describing US dollars in banks outside the USA. That doesn't make it a different currency.

(Eurodoller sounds informal to me, but I'll accept that's not a worldwide view. Plenty of slang is very well-defined anyway, just informal or vulgar.)

"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me? Should a person or organization be free to set the price of its products, whether too high or too low, and likewise be free to succeed or fail based on its actions? Isn't any answer besides "yes" an indication that people have a right to the product. Either that, or one would have to argue that people were somehow coerced into buying the product.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[LostCluster]

That's not the issue in this story. It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Winckle]

Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole, in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses with monopolistic business practices. For example Sun's JVM versus Microsoft's JVM, which was a broken implementation designed solely to disrupt Sun and leveraged through Microsoft Windows autoupdate, something Sun could simply not compete with.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers. Harm to competition is good. Of course, a monopoly makes things a little different. Even with a monopoly and predatory pricing, though, you have to show how that will monetize the harm later on down the road. Predatory pricing is rarely effective because it is so hard to make more money in the long run. This case isn't predatory pricing per se, but I think the theory of harm is generally the same. Anyways, European countries generally have a very different view of antitrust law and the US does, and are much more willing to use it to accomplish abstract concepts of fairness and social justice, as opposed to regulating a market for the benefit of consumers.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.

But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not. And vice versa. And a customer is likewise free to buy the product or not. Unless the company was coerced, or the retailer was coerced, or the customer was coerced, what is the problem here? Whose rights are being violated?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[LostCluster]

It's not the price between the store and vendor that can't be agreed upon, that'd be absurd. It's the price between the store and end consumer that can't be influenced by the vendor.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

It seems equally absurd that MS can't influence the price between the store and end consumer. They can certainly do it indirectly by selling through their website directly to consumers. So why not allow them to coordinate broad promotional rates?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole

I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.

in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses with monopolistic business practices.

This sentence has no content. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, so long as the business is good and the company is not coercing you in any way, nor using government force to their benefit. If the latter, then the government - the provider of the force - would be to blame.

For example Sun's JVM versus Microsoft's JVM, which was a broken implementation designed solely to disrupt Sun and leveraged through Microsoft Windows autoupdate, something Sun could simply not compete with.

So clearly the solution is to spread the word about the incompetence of Microsoft, and persuade people to rationally decide to move away from Microsoft products. Clearly the solution is not to remove all responsibility from consumer actions, and leave consumer safety up to the whims of bureaucrats and their highest-paid lobbyists. No?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

It's not the price between the store and vendor that can't be agreed upon, that'd be absurd. It's the price between the store and end consumer that can't be influenced by the vendor.

And that is likewise absurd. If a vendor says, "if you want a contract with us, you need to price your product at $X on the store shelf" - isn't that contractual law, and shouldn't the store be free to accept or refuse to sign the contract, and succeed or fail by their actions?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Insanity Defense]

But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not

This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.

Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it. Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on? Should the home builder be able to dictate what price a susequent owner sells for? I for one think not. Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Hermel]

A law that forbids price fixing leads to lower prices for the consumer as it allows different vendors of a product to compete against each other. However, this also means that the producer looses some of its control over his products.
Most European countries consider this a small price to pay to get the lower prices. Especially if the profits of overpricing go abroad anyway. :)

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Divebus]

in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses

Yeah... how did that turn out?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers.

Doesn't that imply that consumers have a right to any product for which they would be considered to be harmed were they not able to have access to it? With every other right - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness - for someone to be "harmed" would mean that another entity was preventing them access to their life, to their property, to their choice of actions in their attempt at happiness. Doesn't this implication of a "right" to a product thereby violate the pre-existing rights of individuals to do with their property - the product they make - as they please? This all seems like common sense to me.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Tony Hoyle]

No, that's illegal. I'm surprised it isn't illegal in the US.

They can say 'If you want a contract with us, we're going to charge you $X per unit' but the retailer is free to set any price they like above or even below that. To do otherwise is price fixing - it destroys competition in the marketplace by forcing everyone to sell at the same (inflated) price.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

A law that forbids price fixing leads to lower prices for the consumer as it allows different vendors of a product to compete against each other.

This is quite a remarkable statement, and you will have to do both of the following for me to be convinced:

1. Back up your claim with evidence showing that a company would be able to maintain customers despite inflated prices.
2. Show that the ends justify the means - that it is alright to violate the individual rights of the members of a company to offer their property - their product - at a price they decide, and be held responsible for their actions in the success or failure of those prices.

However, this also means that the producer looses some of its control over his products.

In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Comboman]

And that is likewise absurd. If a vendor says, "if you want a contract with us, you need to price your product at $X on the store shelf" - isn't that contractual law, and shouldn't the store be free to accept or refuse to sign the contract, and succeed or fail by their actions?

But refusing means they can't sell the product at all. And if the vendor uses the same "contract" with all the retailers, that means the vendor is now setting the prices, so there is no longer competition between retailers. Whether the price is set artificially high or low doesn't matter to the law (though consumers are only likely to complain about price-fixing if the price is set artificially high, like for gasoline).

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Registered Coward v2]

That's not the issue in this story. It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.

Didn't Germany have a law that allowed manufacturers to dictate a retail price that set the minimum a store could charge? The idea was this protected the local shops from the big bad chains by eliminating any price differential.

Has that gone away?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

No, that's illegal.

I'm not arguing whether or not it's illegal - that's a matter of fact. I'm arguing whether it should be illegal.

To do otherwise is price fixing - it destroys competition in the marketplace by forcing everyone to sell at the same (inflated) price.

You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that competition will be destroyed, but then say that everyone will have to sell at a higher price. What prevents a competitor from selling a similar product at a lower price? And how do you justify the violation of rights that comes with such regulations against setting the terms of one's contracts?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

But refusing means they can't sell the product at all.

Exactly. The person or company who made the product owns it until they sell it. That is called private property, and is a right required for a person to make rational decisions to benefit his life and his values.

And if the vendor uses the same "contract" with all the retailers, that means the vendor is now setting the prices, so there is no longer competition between retailers.

Of course there is still competition. Some stores are more convenient than others, and stores would compete to be as convenient to the customer as possible. At the same time, other vendors make other products that are sold in other stores. It's ridiculous how the so-called "pro-competition" camp is opposed to a single vendor's product being sold at the same price in all stores, but is in favor of all competing vendors' products being sold at the same prices in all stores - anything else is considered anti-competitive. You're in favor of a contrived competition, which violates the rights of people to set the terms of their contracts and the price of their property, and in the long run will mean products staying at higher prices than they would have otherwise.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[ral8158]

I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.

I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book: the free market would only function the way you think it does if everyone had equal access to all natural resources and intellectual properties. In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways (which is illegal) You are right that monopolies in themselves are not inherently wrong. No one believes they are. It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things. Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Hermel]

This is quite a remarkable statement, and you will have to do both of the following for me to be convinced:

I think a can do that for point 1, but not for point 2:

1. Back up your claim with evidence showing that a company would be able to maintain customers despite inflated prices.

If you define 'inflated' as any price level above the level we would have under perfect competition, then this is easy to show:
Many products are sold at different prices in different countries simply because the people in one country have more purchasing power than in the other country. Under perfect competition, this isn't possible. One of the reason there often isn't perfect competition are government granted privileges like patents. So if I want to buy some patent-protected drug, it will often cost me twice as much as in a neighbor country. In a free market, people could start going to the neighbor country and import truckloads of these products, thereby driving the domestic prices down. However, this is forbidden here.

2. Show that the ends justify the means - that it is alright to violate the individual rights of the members of a company to offer their property - their product - at a price they decide, and be held responsible for their actions in the success or failure of those prices.

I'm not sure this is possible to show. It depends on being able to put a number on the effect described in (1). I guess that products in my country (Switzerland) are generally about 10% overpriced, when comparing to Germany, even when taking into account higher wages. Furthermore, this depends on how high you value property rights. This is highly ideological and I could be discussed endlessly. That's why I don't think I can show (2). It's a matter of personal values and ideology.

In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?

One important difference here is that the inflated prices is often only possible because of government granted privileges like patents. In such cases, I don't think we should be too scrupulous in taking something back in return.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

No. The harm is generally the conversion of consumer surplus into monopoly rent. It has nothing to do with any rights in any Hofeldian or legal sense. It has more to do with the economic theory of monopolies and efficient markets. And, depending on your theory of rights (the one you seem to be trying to assert was valid under Lochner, but has been frowned upon since the 1940's), there will always be a conflict somewhere. Congress decided that the more efficient solution in this case is the best solution, and that's why we look at the harm to consumers.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Kynde]

Fuck Germany. They need Microsoft more than Microsoft needs them.

Come on, nobody needs microsoft that much...

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[TeXMaster]

I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible.

Any pure free market (in particular without antitrust law) will in time destroy itself by degenerating into a monopolistic market. In a monopolistic market no new competitors can enter (because an existing monopoly can lower its prices long enough to starve any newcomer).

Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.

This is only true if the company is providing non-essential services AND if there is another, competing product. Which there might not be in case of monopoly (see above)

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[drinkypoo]

It seems equally absurd that MS can't influence the price between the store and end consumer.

Do you remember when Microsoft was telling OEMs that if they bundled Netscape with their systems, they would lose their preferred pricing on OEM licenses?

Oh wait, obviously not.

Those who forget the lessons of the recent past are doomed to look like idiots on Slashdot.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

It destroys competition between vendors. It is that which is detrimental to the consumer by preventing the consumer being able to find the same product at a fair (optimum, market driven) price.

Doing what you suggest would put control of the entire market in the hands of the company producing the goods, destroy the vendors ability to adapt to the local market including putting items on 'sale' or use price variation to pull customers into their store.

Would it really make sense for every shop to sell everything at the same price?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[A. B3ttik]

Sad, but true.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

It seems equally absurd that MS can't influence the price between the store and end consumer.

Why should they be able to do that? Free market != Fixed market.

What if Don Corleone was the sole provider of wheat, influencing the price of bread to something very reasonable, let's say, $100?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[A. B3ttik]

You should be modded up because your post is the only one that defends Germany and actually makes any sense.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

Influence does not mean dictate. As I clearly explained in my post, influence by offering the same product directly at a lower price. I'm also curious if you ever read the court of appeals opinion? Or are you parroting summaries from the internet?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

There is a limit to what people are willing to pay, even for a monopoly product. Monopoly rents aren't infinite.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

If all retailers agree on keeping the price of a product artificially high that is a cartel and is illegal.

If they do not agree directly, but can rely on the supplier to fix the same price for everyone, the effect is the same and should be sanctioned in the same way.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

You contradict yourself in the same sentence.

No, he didn't. The competition between resellers is removed. The competition with other products is not killed.

And the next step is to force resellers to accept more conditions. Of course, all this in the best interest of the consumer.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being deliberately obscure.

Let's try again, with different phrasing.

The manufacturer cannot dictate the selling price to a store, the store must be free to set any price it wishes.

Simple, no?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book

It is not a matter of "economic theory" but of individual rights. For it to be any other case would mean that the ends justify the means. No ethical system is possible if you are to be judged on the results of your actions rather than the actions themselves (given your knowledge at the time of the actions). It is not possible to answer the question, "What should I do in this situation?" if you must account for unknowable future events and unforeseen consequences.

In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways

There is nothing inherently wrong with monopolies, just as there is nothing inherently good about competition. So long as people are free to decide whether to buy something or not, the seller is responsible for their actions. Only when people are able to lobby the government to pass laws in their favor, and the government willingly enforces those laws, do rights actually get violated.

It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things.

You will have to provide more specific examples where a company apart from government legislation to their benefit was able to violate the rights of individuals. This would be quite an astonishing example, as it would mean the company openly broke the law and nothing was done about it. If you mean something else by "bad things", let me know.

Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.

I have read up on all of these, and found no examples violates individual rights without government intervention (either to stop those rights violations, or to enforce them). What you are doing is trading the illusion of lower prices now for the reality of higher prices (as opposed to artificially inflated prices) later - as a utilitarian you should be able to appreciate that, though you would do better to get more fundamental and understand individual rights.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[dkleinsc]

I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me?

Here's the explanation you asked for:
1. Oligopolies behave differently than competitive markets. This is because the sellers all to some degree have the ability to have a significant effect on the supply curve. In other words, the supply-demand rules you learned in Econ 101 don't exactly apply.
2. Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.

The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

That depends on how hard you need/want the product, free market, you know. A heroin addict would pay any price for a single dose.

I found a way to compare MS Office to heroin. Now I'm happy, thanks.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[TapeCutter]

"In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?"

The difference is the initial seller wants to keep some rights to the property AFTER they have sold it. How far do you let those rights go? If you sell something on ebay do you have to contact the manafacturer to ask what price you are allowed to sell it for? Should the manafacturer have the right to refuse to sell to a retailer who stocks a competing product? Should the manafacturer be able to fix prices below cost in one country so that the locals cannot compete and when they go under the manafacturer jacks the price back up again?

And what of the retailers rights? - Retailers are not a private franchise and no manafacturer should be allowed to treat them as such, the retailer buys the product and it's his to do with as he sees fit, no strings attached.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[drinkypoo]

Influence does not mean dictate. As I clearly explained in my post, influence by offering the same product directly at a lower price.

In this case, influence does mean dictate. Microsoft exerted undue influence. When people say "influence" in court they're not talking about secondary effects. Most of us aren't either. Just you. Please, come and speak the language the rest of us are speaking. I know it's confusing, but which aren't?

I'm also curious if you ever read the court of appeals opinion? Or are you parroting summaries from the internet?

You have committed the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. I have not read the the complete opinion; I am not parroting summaries from the internet. I read enough of the court's opinion to know what was going on, and formed the rest of my very own opinion (you ought to try having one sometime) from my observation of the results.

Just quit while you're behind.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[maxume]

Any heroin addict? I bet there are lots that if you showed them two doors, one with $1,000 cash behind it and one with a little bit of heroin behind it, they would take the money and go talk to their everyday dealer.

I don't think that even severe addiction is going to remove the tendency to price shop.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole

I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.

You can believe all you want, but you're wrong.

Companies artificially inflate their prices by forming cartels to fix the price. Then the Cartel uses its economic dominance to force the smaller vendors out of business or get them to join the cartel. Why sell your product for $50, when you can sell it for $100?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[crmarvin42]

I haven't followed the case, but I'm guessing the MS was not trying to hold the price of the software down, but keep it up. The former would be in the best interest of consumers, but the latter would definitely hurt consumers.

MS doesn't want any of it's partners lowering the value of the software in the minds of consumers. If consumers start to expect that Windows costs $50/license instead of $100, then they'll throw a fit when the New version has an MSRP of $150 (which they'll do anyway, but probably not to the same extent).

Seeing as MS is the only place you can buy their software as a retailer, there is probably very little real-world difference between "influence" and "dictate"

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.

Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract - so long as it doesn't violate individual rights - and if the other person agrees to those requirements, they are contractually obligated to abide by them. Where is the problem?

Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it.

If that is in the terms of the contract, then you would be right. If not, then you wouldn't be.

Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on?

I would be an idiot to sign such a contract, but if I did, then yes, they would and should be able to. Again, I wouldn't sign such a contract. I want the car to be my property, so I don't allow them any situations where they can control it after I have given then $X of my money.

Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.

But the product is not sold at that point. It is not until they sign the contract that the product is sold. This is essentially a merger between manufacturer and retailer. If they want to merge, and no rights are violated by such a merger - obviously true - then they should be free to do so.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[brian0918]

Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.

This is all the more reason for more responsibility in the hands of the consumer. Through the education you provide, I as a consumer am better able to decide what companies to deal with, and I will not deal with a company if they are simply trying to grab market share. If they're selling at a loss, I can't count on them remaining viable in the future - no tech support 5 years down the road, no updates, etc. Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer. You would have responsibility handed over to the government, leading me - the consumer - to make worse decisions over time, and to expect the government to help me out whenever I made bad decisions from lack of education.

The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.

That is fine so long as it does not influence the government to write legislation violating individual rights... yet this is precisely why the study of oligopolies is so "hot".

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Bert64]

But that's because you can price shop...
What if only a single dealer offers heroin, and you're addicted to heroin, would you pay the price that dealer was demanding, or would you go and buy cocaine from someone else instead?

That's closer to how MS operates, and why it's bad for consumers.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on? Should the home builder be able to dictate what price a susequent owner sells for? I for one think not. Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product."

It's called an infinite duration lease.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Bert64]

I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.

Actually, this is where monopoly steps in...
If you have enough of a stranglehold over a market that users can't do without your products, or it significantly hurts them to do so, then you can inflate your prices and customers have no choice but to accept it.

In a fair competitive market what you say is true, but MS have sufficient control of the market that competitors are at a significant advantage...

Look at what Linux has done in the relatively conservative market once dominated by proprietary unix... If they weren't facing an uphill battle with proprietary lock-in linux would have forced windows out of the market by now based purely on price if nothing else.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[z80kid]

Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract

Oops. Read that last part again. Are you sure you can require anything under a contract?

Contracts are enforced by governments. And some governments have things that they will not allow in a contract. Some neighbourhoods here in the US used to sell houses under contract that you can only resell them to another "white" person. Hey, it's in the contract, and the buyer agreed, right?

The government that enforces the contract has stipulations as to what they will allow in the contract. And to prevent "gaming the system", many impose penalties for pushing illegitimate contracts.

Case in point.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DOJ really cared about protecting consumers, instead of wasting time with a company that made operating systems, they would have focused on monopolies like AIG that could truly do harm to our country. I'm not saying MS is perfect (your JVM example is good, the tired browser example is silly IMO). But in the grand scheme of things: Java sucked, Netscape sucked, the companies whined and got the DOJ to intervene and start an international extortion ring of governments who realized MS was a target for easy money. In the mean time the real crooks flew under the radar making more money than MS could ever dream of. So far the consumer has not benefited at all - arguably hurt since MS has to waste time validating features in Windows to make sure they don't violate the DOJ's restrictions instead of focusing on what consumers really want. The DOJ has limited resources, let's focus on the real problems from now on until they get too big to fail/fix.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Winckle]

Microsoft were forced to stop producing their virtual machine and now Sun's implementation of the JVM is the most prominent one.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Plunky]

Any heroin addict? I bet there are lots that if you showed them two doors, one with $1,000 cash behind it and one with a little bit of heroin behind it, they would take the money and go talk to their everyday dealer.

I don't think that even severe addiction is going to remove the tendency to price shop.

I think you miss the point. This might work that way in a free market, but when you have sicced the cops on the other dealers or plain outright killed them, that heroin addict has nowhere else to go.

Although other options have recently become viable again (MacOS), Microsoft has for years successfully schemed (from their market leader position) to kill off any competition by any means fair or foul. This is part of the rebound, too many people are sick of their shit.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[V!NCENT]

People only need Microsoft as long as it's alive. When/if the company goes bankrupt, then would be no Windows, therefore no more Windows apps created, therefore Apple/Linux apps created, therefore Wine would be catching up to the Win32 API and everything, therefore nobody would need it anymore.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[maxume]

Software is quite a bit more fungible than an addictive drug (it has long been trivial to exchange plain text, and commercial software generally has had at least some support for external formats). It might be painful to switch, but certainly very few companies would pay $10,000 per seat just to avoid the pain of switching to some other office software, so there are limits.

Personally, I wonder how much dirty tactics have contributed to Microsoft's success (and said tactics are certainly well documented), and how much things like the inherent value of software, and the network effects in the OS and office/productivity spaces have contributed to their success. If the perceived value of a software package is $5,000 more than a competitor, it doesn't really matter that the market cost is $500 more, or $1,000 more.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[V!NCENT]

Germany: "Hey I am a country and I have created a market with certain rules"
Microsoft: "Hey I'd like to enter that market"
Germany: "You did not follow the rules, so your profit will be (largely?) undone with this fine"
Microsoft: "Ok here's 9 million and we don't care"
Germany: "Ok then that's settled then"

Please specify what sounds more ridiculous to you here...

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[trickyD1ck]

Should? Should not? How do i know? Guess this is why we have contracts - to know what should happen and what not.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[V!NCENT]

Exactly. The person or company who made the product owns it until they sell it. That is called private property, and is a right required for a person to make rational decisions to benefit his life and his values

Since when are we in for putting corporations above citizens? Isn't capitalism supposed to make the world the least-worse place for modern society?

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Divebus]

That's a very good answer but ordering Microsoft to do anything rarely works. The Courts ordered Microsoft to stop producing tools which used Sun's Java. Instead of walking away from Java as the order intended, Microsoft continued with their own dialect (J++) which essentially was Java with all the cross platform functionality stripped away and Windows-only system calls. Microsoft had so many developers using Visual Studio that it instantly put a knife in Java's back and they knew that would happen - write once, run anywhere was dead for a long long time. It's not really that simple, but if I had to condense the story, that would be my take.

In that regard, I'd say "Thank You" to all the Java developers who carried out the spirit of the Court order and went against the tide of Microsoft.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gnasher719]

And that is likewise absurd. If a vendor says, "if you want a contract with us, you need to price your product at $X on the store shelf" - isn't that contractual law, and shouldn't the store be free to accept or refuse to sign the contract, and succeed or fail by their actions?

Let me explain just one of the problems: Let's say there are four stores in my town. All four stores want to sell a popular product. The manufacturer sells the product to each store. At that point, European law (and I think US law as well) wants the effects of competition to take effect: The four stores are supposed to compete with each other, by having better service, better advertising, or perhaps better prices than their competitors. That kind of competition is then beneficial for the consumer. But if the manufacturer signs contracts with each company telling them for how much they can sell the product, then there can be no price competition anymore. In other words, a contract between manufacturer and sellers about the pricing is anti-competitive.

Usually this kind of thing cannot happen anyway. If some small company tries to dictate to a store what the sale price of a product should be, the store will ask them to bugger off and will by somewhere else. This can usually only happen if the seller has a monopoly on their products. You may not have noticed, but in the US Microsoft sells the operating system for 90 percent of all computers. If there are four computer stores in my town, and three of them don't accept Microsoft's terms, then those three stores will go bankrupt.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[V!NCENT]

In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?

That Microsoft is not selling property but licenses. I would love to be able to own Microsoft Office by paying the price they charge for consumer licenses.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[gravesb]

Wow. Just wow. When I used influence in my post, I was using it in a particular sense, covered in both the OED and Black's, that was clear in context. The fact that you had to use an adjective in front of the word to change its meaning should clue you in. I was also referring to price setting, not bundling, which are two entirely different concepts in US antitrust law. If you had read the opinion, you would know that bundling is what got MS in trouble. There was little to no discussion on price. As far as how courts use influence, you may want to be careful about assuming courts have any single meaning of a word in mind at any time. They rarely do. Anyway, I'll quit now.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Bert64]

It's painful to switch, just as it's painful to give up an addictive drug... Neither is impossible, both are extremely painful, and both allow their respective suppliers to provide inferior product at higher prices than they would if the addiction didn't exist... Less so with drugs actually, because there are usually competing suppliers of drugs.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[KDR_11k]

I think it applies to some goods (medicine, books) but not all.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[KDR_11k]

It is not a matter of "economic theory" but of individual rights. For it to be any other case would mean that the ends justify the means. No ethical system is possible if you are to be judged on the results of your actions rather than the actions themselves (given your knowledge at the time of the actions). It is not possible to answer the question, "What should I do in this situation?" if you must account for unknowable future events and unforeseen consequences.

How does that relate to antitrust laws? You realize they don't punish you for having a monopoly, right? They punish you for abusing it, actions that are clearly defined and the only way you could claim you didn't know it would violate the law would be to claim ignorance of the law (which is not a defense). You aren't automatically punished for outcomes you couldn't predict, you're punished for taking specific actions in a situation that is known beforehand. No guesswork here. Once you're a monopoly you simply don't do those things and you're clear.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[KDR_11k]

You own a COPY, a physical medium containing data that acts as the software. Note how any other piece of copyrighted media works just fine without any "licensed, not sold" bullshit.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[KDR_11k]

So, how are you going to responsibly buy from the right company when there IS ONLY ONE? Do you say "I won't use Windows"? Okay, time to move all your applications over to Linux... Wait, half of them don't work there and must be replaced with inferior clones that fail to interoperate with some of your important data? Better hope all of it can be replaced before any deadlines hit you. Some application has no alternative on Linux? Good luck doing business then.

The applications are specifically engineered to maximize the damage that scenario causes. A switch can very well cause a lot more damage than the higher costs you incur by letting a monopoly continue to do business. You can easily end up needing them more than they need you.

Perfectly free markets only work with zero friction, where people always make the most logical choice. Real life markets are geared around increasing friction, tricking people into making suboptimal choices, etc. Expecting a person to research everything and still have enough time left to actually have a job is insane, it takes too much time especially with the intentional obfuscation.

Finally, corporations don't need full individual rights, they are tools created to serve the human race, not equals to it. When the concerns of the race require it the corporation must yield.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Contract law in the EU (and presumably the US too) is subordinated to competition law. If a contract contravenes article 81 EC, it is thereby void (art. 81(2) EC).

The problem here is not MS's freedom to contract with distributors, because that freedom is necessarily abrogated in order to prevent resale price maintenance. It is a policy choice of EU law (and presumably German law) that such an agreement has as its object the restriction of competition: it prevents the competitive process from working by forcing distributors to maintain an artificially high price rather than to actually compete with each other. Where inter-brand competition is limited (e.g. between MS office and OpenOffice.org) due to network externalities of MS Office reinforcing its dominant position on the office software market, intra-brand competition (e.g. between Best Buy and Amazon) becomes crucial to the proper functioning of the competitive process and the ideal of the free market economy.

Re:"Anti-competitive"

[dkleinsc]

Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer.

I said no such thing. I simply explained that oligopolies have different market dynamics than competitive markets. Quit putting words in my mouth.

You would be incorrect in thinking that someone selling a loss leader to grab market share isn't necessarily long-term viable. For instance, Microsoft lowered the price of a web browser to $0, but could continue to afford to do that long-term because their other businesses could pay for the loss.

9M Euros and all I got was was this stupid .docx

[TheLeopardsAreComing]

They have been caught... again. 9M Euros., Gates:"Put It On The Tab".

Measly 9 million Euros

[Junior J. Junior III]

I have no idea what taxes are like in Europe, but I'd have to imagine that that's probably significantly less than the amount of sales tax collected on the sale of those licenses. At that point, it's just another minor cost of doing business. No wonder MS didn't feel a need to appeal.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[Anonymous Coward]

AFIAK, Microsoft pays 0, NIL, NADA, nowt tax on its business in Europe. They did a deal with the Irish Gov some times ago and Microsoft Europe is registered in some remote part of Ireland. This is a pure tax avoidance move.

This company is the formal presence of Microsoft in the EU. Microsoft GMBH (the german subsidiary) will pass it onto their parent compant in a blink of an electronic funds transfer.

This fine is just going to be absorbed into daily running costs.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[prefec2]

In Germany the sales tax is 19%. By a 190 EUR end price, this would be 159.66 EUR => 30.34 EUR difference. So this is the equivalent of 296667 units. Quite a lot for one reseller.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[Junior J. Junior III]

In Germany the sales tax is 19%. By a 190 EUR end price, this would be 159.66 EUR => 30.34 EUR difference. So this is the equivalent of 296667 units. Quite a lot for one reseller.

And how many units did MS sell to Europe in the time period in question? I'm guessing it would be in the millions. 300,000 sales is a large number, but still small compared to the number of licenses I assume they must sell to a continent with a population in the hundreds of millions.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[Strudelkugel]

Another factor to consider: As the EU or various countries within it continue to get fines from Microsoft, they will begin to see them as an alternate source of revenue. In other words, dinging Microsoft for some contrived fine here and there could actually be a "good" thing for Microsoft, as it will bound the EU/individual country actions to some extent, since they won't want to hurt Microsoft too much. In that sense, the fines become a cost of doing business, and a slush fund for the members of the EU. It's a lot like the tobacco settlements in this country. States sought to "penalize" the industry, but the tobacco companies saw the fines as a good way to get the states interested in generating revenue through tobacco sales since they get a bigger piece of the transactions now.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'd mod you up for this if I could. That's an absolutely critical point that I think should not go unnoticed.

Re:Measly 9 million Euros

[drsquare]

I don't think that nine million Euros is much to a government with a budget of hundreds of billions.

huh?

[Ogive17]

Who were they trying to undercut? What other retail productivity suites are still on the shelves?

Re:huh?

[downix]

IBM's Lotus, the german-created StarOffice, WordPerfect Office...

Your very answer demonstrates the problem.

Re:huh?

[emocomputerjock]

Get this - Corel is still out there. The legal world in the States is absolutely dependent on it. I couldn't believe it either, but they still make productivity software.

Re:huh?

[bahstid]

No, its not about them undercutting other productivity suites, its about them undercutting other retailers who are also selling MS Office... Maybe a car analogy. I am a car manufacturer and you are a dealer. I sell you cars for a fantastic $1000 a pop, if you agree to buy 100 units. After we've shaken hands and exchanged cash, I go to the guy next door to you and arrange it so that they can sell their 100 hundred units at a floor-price of $500. Guess you are going to have a little bit of trouble moving your 100 "super-cheap" specials, yes?

Re:huh?

[TeXMaster]

In fact, Corel's WordPerfect Office has always been significantly better than MSO (at least for the parts I've been using, namely the WordPerfect and Quattro Pro) [and no, it's not as perfect as the name would suggest, sadly]

9m euros = cheap

[gcnaddict]

Challenging a 9m euro fine would be more expensive (lawyer fees) than just eating the fine, so I can understand their decision.

It doesn't mean guilt... but they might be guilty anyway, so meh.

Re:9m euros = cheap

[AnalPerfume]

The exposure as evidence of even more crimes with a paper trail is very likely a large factor in deciding to just close this threat off and accept the fine. Anything from these investigations that becomes public knowledge can be used against them in other court cases around the world. It's just in one country after all, albeit a large rich one. Now we need to see other countries investigate the same practices, unless we're gullible enough to believe that only went on in Germany.

Re:9m euros = cheap

[Mr. Samuel]

... but they might be guilty anyway, so meh.

Dude, this is Slashdot. Of course Microsoft is guilty.

Re:9m euros = cheap

[V!NCENT]

Dude, this is Slashdot. Of course Microsoft is guilty.

Dude, this is Microsoft. Of course Slashdot finds them guilty.

Re:9m euros = cheap

[perryizgr8]

Dude, this is Slashdot. Of course Microsoft is guilty.

Dude, this is Microsoft. Of course Slashdot finds them guilty.

we have a verdict me lord: GUILTY

what was the theory of harm

[gravesb]

I don't understand what the theory of harm here is. MS was obviously attempting to capture more of its monopoly rent, but there are other ways to do so that aren't illegal, so I'm not sure what point this particular law serves. Why is it bad for retailers and suppliers to set prices? Don't large internet retailers help set market prices in a de facto sense, anyway? If MS sells the suite directly from its website, doesn't that cap what a retailers can charge? European antitrust law is confusing. I wonder what the additional compliance costs are? Is Germany's desire to protect small retailers worth how those costs?

Re:what was the theory of harm

[morgan_greywolf]

If MS sells the suite directly from its website, doesn't that cap what a retailers can charge?

Not really. People are stupid. Example: the Capresso Infinity conical burr coffee grinder in black ABS plastic sells for $89 on the manufacturer's website. Other manufacturers also sell the same grinder for $89. But there's a few vendors like this one that are selling it for $139, while claiming a "list price" of $219. (Don't buy from that link).

Re:what was the theory of harm

[viralMeme]

"Not every contact between supplier and retailer regarding resale prices constitutes an illegal concerted practice within the meaning of Section 1 ARC. However, this must not lead to a form of coordination where the supplier actively tries to coordinate the pricing activities of the retailer and thus retailer and supplier agree on future actions of the retailer. In the present case, this boundary has been crossed"

Re:what was the theory of harm

[gravesb]

Right, I read the article. That still doesn't answer the question, who got hurt? What is the economic theory underlying that statute?

Laugh it up Mein Herr

[Vinegar Joe]

Now Microsoft will simply jack up the price of the German version of Office by about 20 Euro.

Re:Laugh it up Mein Herr

[Tony Hoyle]

No, it means the retailers are free to determine the price vs. the wholesale price. Some of the cheaper ones will sell it cheaper than they do currently, and some will sell it at RRP or higher. Competition in the market is restored.

Microsoft don't get to set the price. That's the point. The can recommend one but they cannot make retailers sell at that price.

Re:Laugh it up Mein Herr

[Vinegar Joe]

But they *can* charge the retailers a higher price which in the end will be passed on to the consumers.

Re:Laugh it up Mein Herr

[V!NCENT]

Which puts Microsoft in a nasty situation... Or are you going to suggest product locking? If that's the case then Microsoft needs to be fined again and rightfully so for illegal practices or having a monopoly, which is gonna suck for them...

Re:Laugh it up Mein Herr

[tepples]

Which puts Microsoft in a nasty situation... Or are you going to suggest product locking?

There's already lock-in. I'm pretty sure OpenOffice.org Base still can't run VBA applications designed to run in Microsoft Access.

Wrong

[TheNormal]

Europe is doing to our companies what the US is doing to our companies: spreading the wealth around/robbing them. Call it whatever you like. Now, I don't use Microsoft products. I think their business and development models are suited to a by-gone age (I am mostly alone in thinking that way), and need an BIG update. But I know they provide a lot of technologies to companies and integrated business solutions on a comprehensive scale that no other company in the world is capable of rivaling. They can be sued and fined for anti-trust violations, but it's hard to justify that when there are no existing competitors. What I mean by that is that no one sees business quite the way Bill Gates sees it. Same with Steve Jobs. Bill Gate's vision is entirely unique and effective. Take it from a guy who's starting a business of his own (very small): the business world has lots of good people who enjoy competition, and even get concerned when their competition doesn't do well. The business executive can be the most generous and humble person in the world. I can provide many examples, not the least of which is The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They don't like being slapped around by governments. It isn't that governments don't know what they're doing, it's that they don't care. Governments have two things in mind: agenda and votes, and they're willing to throw any businessperson to the dogs to get either. And BTW: 9M Euros is a lot, even to Microsoft. I just can't bring myself to believe this fine is just.

Notthing to see here (Re:9m euros = cheap)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. This is just a German law that doesn't exists anywhere else. And based on the reactions of this story so far, SEEN AS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD TO EVERY OTHER NATION of people. It's common practice, from what I've gathered, for companies to set what I've commonly seen refered to as "Suggested Retail Price."

Shit, almost everything in America by a larger corporation has such a "suggested retail price." I don't see how that could ever be construed as anti-competitive, but leave it to the German's to figure out how it is. Absolute Retardedness, it doesn't take a genius to realize that is simple good business practice.

Re:Notthing to see here (Re:9m euros = cheap)

[BeeRockxs]

Suggested Retail Price != you have to sell it at this price, and not at any lower price

It will take them a shole 3 hours to recoup

[blind biker]

According to Microsoft's 1st quarter 2009 earnings report, net income for the quarter was 4.37 billion US$.

Assuming a quarter has 90 days (and not distinguishing between working and non working days), MS makes
4370000000 / (90 * 24 * 60) = 33719 US$/minute
which means that Microsoft will make the 12.000.000 US$ in less than 7 hours - and this including non-working days, and assuming 24-hour days.

If you're not MS, you may weep now.

Re:It will take them a shole 3 hours to recoup

[maxume]

The U.S. government spends $12 million every 2.2 minutes. The U.S. economy produces $12 million every 30 seconds. These things are also completely unrelated to the appropriateness of the fine Microsoft paid for violating German consumer protection laws.

Re:It will take them a shole 3 hours to recoup

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on there.... net income is not always a great measure of income because of elements like depreciation. A more fair metrics to look at is cashflow from operations - which is the actual money that's coming to MSFT from its businesses (as oppose to changes due to its financing arrangements, etc). I see that the 08 annual CF is 21.6 billion. This ~1.2b fine is basically 5.6% of its operating cashflow... maybe not crippling, but certainly not trivial.

Re:It will take them a shole 3 hours to recoup

[perryizgr8]

its not 1.2b its 12m.

Suggested Retail Price

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure my other comment will be seen as /. seems to have issues displaying all comments (and just generally browsing comments) in IE8, even with compatibility mode (anyone know how to fix this?)

Anyway, "suggested retail price" (SRP). It's always been around, and is what is practiced in America. How is it any different in Germany? A store will mostl likely sell a product based on it's suggested retail price for obvious reasons. But if a store is able to procure a bulk quantity, they are free to price the individual copies less than the SRP. That wouldn't be "coercing" the store at all, they were free to choose how money to invest in the product for their store shelves. So, I need help understanding this inane concept. Thanks!

Re:Suggested Retail Price

[Teun]

The article is not clear about what was at the root of the problem but I suppose it was MS giving special or preferential treatment to a single retailer, thus meddling in the free market.

Re:Suggested Retail Price

[perryizgr8]

yeah i'm also having problems sliding the comments slider. but it works in horizontal mode.

Your right, but you should be wrong

[microbox]

The currency in the UK is should most definitely the "pounddollar." It sounds so quaint.

Re:Your right, but you should be wrong

[xaxa]

The currency in the UK is should most definitely the "pounddollar." It sounds so quaint.

More quaint than "pound sterling"?

Issue fines in percents instead?

[amn108]

I am wondering about one thing:

Why are we still issuing fines in currency? Obviously, it should be percents of currency. Like percents of wages, income, revenue or whatever likes. Why are we not doing that? It would make it more fair, as a fine of 10% on the income would teach equally good lesson to a company with $10B income as to a company with $10M income. Isn't the whole point of fining to punish and make sure it does not happen again? Because 9M Euros for Microsoft is hardly a lesson more like a routine job for their accountants. Its what they spend on buying PostIt notes for their employees.

Fining them with 10% of their income, would cost them about $6B, which would more likely persuade their suits to not try and play the price fixing game.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[Tony Hoyle]

Fining them $6B would mean they'd appeal it and it'd ending up being an expensive legal mess. You want to fine enough that it destroys the extra profit made, but not enough that it's worth them rolling out the lawyers.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[amn108]

Even though it may end up being expensive legal mess, chances are the expensive legal mess would end up them paying the fine anyway. Plus their lawyers' expenses, plus their prosecution's lawyers' expenses.

On another note, 9M for Microsoft is not "enough" anyways. Then you may as well not bother fining at all. If EU fined them, they were pretty sure the law is on their side, lawyers effort of both sides included.

I think I will wait out for some more opinions. But thanks for sharing.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[Lulfas]

Fining them $6B means they'll pull out of Germany and ignore their whiny little threats.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[maxume]

Trying to apply German law to all of the income that a foreign company made would result in a lot of companies not bothering to do business in Germany.

Scaling the fine based on the revenue involved would be a lot more reasonable. It wouldn't be utterly shocking to find out that a few hundred million dollars of revenue are involved here, which lines up pretty well with the $9 million fine.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[Helmholtz]

Companies do not pay fines, consumers do.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

You say that like its a bad thing?

Unfortunately Germany is too large a country for the even M$ to ignore.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Companies do not pay fines, consumers do.

They do pay fines when they're not monopolies.

Normal companies that have to compete just have to just suck it up, and take it as a loss of profit, or perhaps even a loss on the books; because they have to keep their prices low in order to compete.

If they could just jack-up their prices without loss of sales, they would. Because that would mean that could make more profit.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[amn108]

That is sadly very true in this case.

Like the person below said, however, monopolies do not pay fines, their customers do. But everyone else, who has not yet monopolized their market, DOES pay fines. Lesser things bankrupt companies. Most are just head above water most of their history.

Also, the percentage fines just seem logical. But then again, when EU decides on a fine, they do take into account the size of the business they are targetting.

It is just, in thise case, the sum is ridiculus. They may be a bit afraid, lazy, or have just had a one-night stand with Microsoft.

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[amn108]

Ironically, monopolies like Microsoft, are the one kind of businesses which CANNOT AFFORD to not do business in a EU state. And it has nothing to do with money. Well it does, but not in the sense most of us would think, I guess. It has just as much to do with a related and at least as potent unit of measure - power.

Imagine Microsoft, out of their infinite wisdom (the stupidity of which is explained further), decides to pull out of Germany, because Germany made life harder than sweet (they do not settle for less, do they?) for them. Now I will show you why Microsoft would NEVER do that, no matter how much EU or a EU state pissed them off:

If they pull out of a EU-national market altogether, the said EU state will shortly after demand they open up whatever data formats they need to interoperate with. Obviously since Microsoft no longer offers its products in Germany, and Germany uses other solutions, and since our Information Society depends on information from one continent being usable on another, Germany will politely (first) ask Microsoft to cough up anything and everything they need to read those pesky files coming their way from everywhere around. The funny thing is, platform lock-in in the manner of deliberately not-disclosing data formats in favour of operating only with 'products', is Microsoft's primary reason for revenue. Admit it, this is Microsoft makes money - develop new product, create demand, make everybody produce data using this product, and forget about disclosing specification. Turns out, after half the planet has accumulated piles of data generated with your product, they HAVE to keep around a copy of it, and those of their friends with the copies of said data who do not have the product yet HAVE to buy it, there is no alternatives anyway. Now back to the discussion - put simply Microsoft will NEVER agree to a general policy of disclosing data formats they create, because it is silver bullet to them. Fine, what happens then (provided they have pulled out and refuse to cooperate with said EU state), is that the EU state brings it to the attention of U.S. government, from which point on the game stops to be about software and interoperability, and becomes politics. And you have to be stupid to expect anything else than cooperation between U.S.A. and EU in 2009, with most of the world facilities entirely dependent on software and semi-dependent on eachother intercontinentally. Of course if you are the deepthinker type, you may think there will be a third world war instead. But I think I know what is cheaper for any party involved - force Microsoft shamefully back into EU. World War in 2009 is not only expensive, but so expensive nobody will fund it. Point is, Microsoft WILL TAKE THE BLOW because otherwise they are confined to a life of open standards which is NOT their game. Ironically, giant as they are, they are confined to a very rigid set of rules. And ironically if they do pull out, we get open standards for free!

Just my opinion (easy to forget).

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[maxume]

Wow, that's a lot of speculation (both in volume of text, and in how many assumptions you stack together).

I guess if pulling completely out of Germany (in response to onerous regulation) exposed a company to even more draconian EU-wide regulation, they would simply seek to limit their operations in Germany (with a focus on legal compliance).

Re:Issue fines in percents instead?

[amn108]

Wow, that's a lot of speculation (both in volume of text, and in how many assumptions you stack together).

I guess if pulling completely out of Germany (in response to onerous regulation) exposed a company to even more draconian EU-wide regulation, they would simply seek to limit their operations in Germany (with a focus on legal compliance).

Wow, that's some speculation alright. The assumptions stacked together!

That'll show them!

[bigsexyjoe]

Assuming they make less than 9 million Euros from price fixing and anti-competitive practices, that is...

If the US won't break up microsoft...

[mrphoton]

I just wish the EU would take a harder line on Microsoft. Microsoft is not a European company,they are a monopoly extorting cash from EU citizens. Can you imagine if Ford was the only car maker in Europe. We would just not put up with it. I don't see why we should allow MS to import their products at all. At the very least we should impose very high import tariffs.

Re:If the US won't break up microsoft...

[Vinegar Joe]

I just wish the EU would take a harder line on Microsoft. Microsoft is not a European company,they are a monopoly extorting cash from EU citizens. Can you imagine if Ford was the only car maker in Europe. We would just not put up with it. I don't see why we should allow MS to import their products at all. At the very least we should impose very high import tariffs.

The EU should go after Microsoft.......right after it goes after Gazprom.....you know, the Russian oil company that extorts cash from Europeans? Now that would take some real balls.

Be sure and let us know how that turns out next winter.

Re:If the US won't break up microsoft...

[Teun]

Europe is more about open borders and giving all a chance to do business.

Treating a company different because they are not from your country is so last century, it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Your suggestion would only end in an economic war where all would suffer.

Re:If the US won't break up microsoft...

[perryizgr8]

I just wish the EU would take a harder line on Microsoft. Microsoft is not a European company,they are a monopoly extorting cash from EU citizens. Can you imagine if Ford was the only car maker in Europe. We would just not put up with it. I don't see why we should allow MS to import their products at all. At the very least we should impose very high import tariffs.

you talk senselessly. if ford was the only car maker in europe, instead of fining ford, europeans should make their own car company. because its not ford's fault is europe doesn't know how to make cars.

Re:If the US won't break up microsoft...

[rts008]

I think that if PC OEM's were required to declare the $$ of the cost of getting Windows pre-installed on the PC, and be required to offer the same model/specc'd PC without any OS installed.(not a crippled or lower spec machine-identical!)

The dodgy tactics with OEM's and pre-installed OS' are where the main problem lies, and until this is addressed in some fashion, this kind of crap will be a recurring problem to the detriment of the retail customers. (think back to the whole Linux/Xp on netbooks debacle for a recent example)

Re:If the US won't break up microsoft...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I just wish the EU would take a harder line on Microsoft. Microsoft is not a European company,they are a monopoly extorting cash from EU citizens. Can you imagine if Ford was the only car maker in Europe. We would just not put up with it. I don't see why we should allow MS to import their products at all. At the very least we should impose very high import tariffs.

you talk senselessly. if ford was the only car maker in europe, instead of fining ford, europeans should make their own car company. because its not ford's fault is europe doesn't know how to make cars.

The issue, however, is not as presented. It's not illegal to be the only maker of some product. Having a monopoly is legal. It's using that monopoly to undermine other markets that is illegal. For example, if Ford was the only automaker and they put locks on the gas caps that would only open when used in conjunction with special Ford brand gas pumps.

Cheap

[Kynde]

If parking tickets where 2cents I could park where ever I'd like. I think the same holds for Microsoft in this case.

No,You Suck My Balls Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you suck my balls Steve Jobs !!!!!!

WOW.."big" penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will say, "yeah, take my 10M bill and give the change".....

Re:WOW.."big" penalty

[perryizgr8]

Microsoft will say, "yeah, take my 10M bill and keep the change".....

that's better.

From the Bundeskartellamt

[comm2k]

For all of you wondering why Microsoft was fined. Linked in the article.. but who reads that anyway?

The product in question was heavily advertised in the autumn of 2008 in stationary retail outlets. Amongst others, a nationwide active retailer advertised the product with financial support from Microsoft. Even before the launch of the advertising campaign in mid-October 2008, employees of Microsoft and the retailer in question had agreed on at least two occasions on the resale price of the software package "Office Home & Student 2007".
Not every contact between supplier and retailer regarding resale prices constitutes an illegal concerted practice within the meaning of Section 1 ARC. However, this must not lead to a form of coordination where the supplier actively tries to coordinate the pricing activities of the retailer and thus retailer and supplier agree on future actions of the retailer. In the present case, this boundary has been crossed. Microsoft has accepted the fine.

http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/2009_04_08.php

Quotes from the Hearing

[BlindSpot]

Bill Gates: Steve, my wallet's in my right front pocket. Oh, I'll take that statue of justice, too.
German Judge: Sold!

Re: Bob!

[TaoPhoenix]

"Hi.

It looks like you are paying a European Fine. Would you like to:

Collect the laundry quarters from everyone in the company;
Use one of Mr. Ballmer's Appearance Fees from a lecture;
Perform the revenue calculations with a flawed Pentium1"

Blockbuster fine!

[Dr. Grabow]

Per Wikipedia, Microsoft had net income (not gross revenue) of $17,681,000,000 last year. With 262 working days per year, that is daily net income of $67,484,132 per day. That's over $8,000,000 per *hour* so the fine comes to a whopping amount of less than *2 hours* of Microsoft's net income when converted to euros...

It's a crappy settlement

[Roadkills-R-Us]

No. I suspect MS spends more on this per year for toilet paper.

A package manager, not a web browser

[tepples]

If I didn't have IE built into my computer how was I supposed to go to Mozilla's website and download firefox?

Windows could have been distributed with an app that would grab a list of MSI packages of the major web browsers, and the user would download one after installing Windows. This app wouldn't render any HTML, CSS, or JavaScript, just a simple GUI front end over the equivalent of wget.

Re:A package manager, not a web browser

[portalcake625]

If I didn't have IE built into my computer how was I supposed to go to Mozilla's website and download firefox?

Windows could have been distributed with an app that would grab a list of MSI packages of the major web browsers, and the user would download one after installing Windows. This app wouldn't render any HTML, CSS, or JavaScript, just a simple GUI front end over the equivalent of wget.

Yeah. Exactly like ReactOS. Oh wait. ReactOS is not Windows.

This will improve the situation... NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is charging them an exorbitant amount of money going to rectify the situation? They will simply pass the cost onto the consumer. How about... oh, I don't know... putting someone who makes the decisions in jail?