Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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.
My blog
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.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
>> 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.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
If parking tickets where 2cents I could park where ever I'd like. I think the same holds for Microsoft in this case.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
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".
which is totally what she said
Obviously.
There, fixed that for you.
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.
Right, because it's impossible for the retailer to bundle a browser other than IE.
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.
For suitably recent definitions of "Long Ago", like last year at ISO.