Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cancels EU Antitrust Hearing
bahstid writes "The NY Times reports that Microsoft and the European Commission have canceled the only hearing planned in an antitrust investigation into the company's tying of Internet Explorer into Windows because of a dispute over the attendance of European regulators serving as advisers. As a result, the commission will reach its decision and levy a fine based on written statements from Microsoft and its adversaries. Microsoft decided against the opportunity to give oral evidence in the case after it was unable to persuade the commission to move the meeting, scheduled for June 3rd through 5th, so that it did not conflict with a global antitrust conference in Zurich that draws European antitrust regulators."
MS requested the opportunity to present oral arguments, the EU scheduled the meeting, MS felt that, although all the required attendees could make it, the date conflicted with another large event, leaving MS without a chance to orally lobby some of those on the sidelines.
MS said that they're not attending, and the EU cancelled it. Basically that means that it's over and that MS is going to lose.
Get your checkbook out, Ballmer!
Put identity in the browser.
No the OEMs installing Windows would put their own choice of browser on the PC without having Microsoft force their own choice on the user without any giving any means to remove it.
It is almost as insane as claiming that foreign companies would have to follow US laws when operating in the USA.
How could we ask for that when even our own companies don't follow them!
If you are ever arrested and charged with a crime, I suggest that you request the chief of police attend the hearing because you don't think the investigating officer is important enough for your case. If they tell you he's not available then, you can always suggest that they can have the hearing back at your gang headquarters any time they like. I'm sure they will be most amenable to your request.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
It's wrong because they used bundling with their dominant OS to kill the competition in the browser market. It's illegal to use bundling combined with a dominant position in the market to screw the competition. It's called antitrust law, and I suggest you look that up before getting all opinionated over this. The same antitrust laws exist in the US.
Clever signature text goes here.
Probably not. That's the nature of competition law. Dominant players don't play by the same rules as everyone else. Microsoft ignored that, abused their position to undermine competition, and thus broke the law.
If the other guy is cheating at a game and winning (breaking the law), why shouldn't there be any consequences for the cheater?
So to compete in the browser market, all browser vendors should be required to create their own OS?
Breaking the law is not "unfair play"?
Clever signature text goes here.
What, the verdict has already been announced? The EU has already decded that IE must be unbundled? News to me.
Does that change Microsoft's past illegal actions? If you rob a bank and the bank makes enough money to make up for the loss, does that mean that you won't get punished?
Clever signature text goes here.
Actually, it wasn't the EU who initiated this case. Opera, backed by Mozilla, Google, and others, got the EU to investigate what they argued were actions that violated antitrust law.
Actually, none of the people Microsoft claimed to be worried about not attending never attend these hearings anyway. Hearings are usually attended by staff level personell in the first place. The hearing would also be attended by the European Commissioner for Competition.
A reasonable request for something no one else gets granted. Right. You are buying into Microsoft's bullshit.
Instead of blindly believing Microsoft's lies, check out the comments by Thomas Vinje and commission spokesman Jonathan Todd. It turns out that Microsoft is just lying and stalling, probably hoping for the current competition commissioner to retire later this year and have a more Microsoft-friendly person appointed.
Clever signature text goes here.
There are several browser vendors out there. They are making money. And they were making money before Microsoft started breaking the law and undermining competition. The browser market existed before Microsoft. Microsoft was betting on their Microsoft Network thing for a long time, remember?
Well, you clearly weren't even informed about the law. Shouldn't you at least educate yourself before commenting?
So when someone uses illegal performance-enhancing drugs to win at sports, the competitors can cry all they want because the winner did best because of his strategy?
No, you get "fucked in the ass" for breaking the law.
In case you didn't notice, this is a case in the EU. In case you didn't notice, the US has had antitrust laws for ages. Antitrust laws exists all over the world. Perhaps you should educate yourself before being all opinionated over something you clearly don't understand?
Clever signature text goes here.
You're right, people don't choose a PC by which browser is installed, nor do they choose by which OS is installed; despite Microsoft's insistent claims that Windows is the "preferred choice" of consumers.
My evidence? I'm merely stating some facts. If you want the actual evidence, perhaps you should look it up for yourself. Here is a good place to start if you wish to educate yourself.
Actually, you can't bundle any products you want if you are in a dominant position like Microsoft is. The nature of the bundle was likely violating antitrust law (the ruling has not yet been made, mind you), because Microsoft has definitely undermined competition in the browser market by abusing its dominance in the OS market.
So what you are saying is that there should be no consequences if you break the law?
So-called bundle? Are you denying that IE is bundled with Windows? And how is the average consumer's computer skills relevant?
What factors? The EC has not made a ruling yet, but did state its preliminary view that it does look like Microsoft broke the law. After issuing the statement where they found there was ground for further followup on the issue, they started gathering more data. This includes responses from Microsoft.
This case is about browsers, not operating systems.
Netscape is not the only victim of Microsoft's illegal actions.
Clever signature text goes here.
Bundling a browser with an OS isn't illegal. It's illegall to use bundling with a dominant product (Windows) to destroy the competition in a different market (browsers). Apple and Linux definitely do not have the dominance in the market to do that, so they are free to bundle. Besides, Safari is actually a standards compliant browser.
Clever signature text goes here.
That's unfortunate for the 50 million people who live in South Korea, however that still makes a Linux Live CD the ideal option for the majority of internet users whose banks aren't forced to use a government-mandated piece of software and/or have the sense not to tie an important part of their business to just the one piece of outdated software.
The US needs to learn that free competition should trump capitalism.