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.
When I was younger and lived on Nauru, we used to go climb the mountain. There is a big mountain on Nauru. Well, not so much a mountain as a crater. But the crater is filled with guano, so it's not truly either a crater or a mountain.
Anyway, we used to climb the mountain after school. Once I found a dead body in the brush. When I called my father over, he simply told me to go home. Later that evening, my father called the police and there was a big hullabaloo over the dead body. I remember eating dinner that night after the police had left and I asked my mom why she was crying. She told me that they would have to hold my father in detention until more evidence could be gathered.
My father died in that Nauruan jail cell.
The first is that Microsoft knows that it is so guilty that nothing they say or do at this point will make their penalty smaller.
The second is that Microsoft has simply given up any hope of getting a fair hearing because the EC has already made up its mind.
It's certainly not the first time anyone's skipped work to go to a con.
got this from one of the related links at the bottom of TFA:
According to the person, Microsoft will argue that Internet browsing is inseparable from the Windows operating system. Microsoft will also emphasize that consumers can download and use any competing browser with Windows, and that Internet Explorer's share of the browser market has been falling steadily.
so thats part of their argument? "You see, we're loosing, so that means it's ok for us to cheat!"
here is the article (May 8th)
sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
Judge: Why didn't you attend your DUI?
Me: Oh, I cancelled it, didn't you get the email?
Judge: I didn't get a chance to check my email this morning, when can you attend another hearing?
Me: I don't have time I'm afraid, it's all explained in the email though
Judge: OK then, drive safe now!
Me: Thanks!
Summation 2
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!
So they'll be forced to unbundle IE from Windows in the EU, that only applies to the installation DVD, OEMs will still have to install A browser on the PC before the customer buys a license to use it. What's the betting we'll see an army of Microsoft reps at the OEMs making them "offers they can't refuse" to ensure IE is their "independent choice". Nudge nudge, wink wink ;) Just keep the deal under you hat and keep marking "...... recommends Windows" on all your marketing stuff.
Finding of facts III.35:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the world- wide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent.
So the relevant market is Intel-compatible PC operating systems, not including valid alternative operating systems.
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.
Unless your bank uses an ActiveX plugin like all Korean banks are required to.
I guess the Live CD might still be the safest way, but only in the "the safest computer is the one with the network cable unplugged" sense.
Put identity in the browser.
Install AOL off a CD and download Firefox...wait..no...ack!
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.
No one ever said Microsoft had a monopoly on all PCs.
In previous court cases MS was ruled to have monopoly influence on the "desktop operating system" market.
In fact, Apple has quite a sizable share of the PC market.
The PC market is not monopolized. There is Dell and HP and Lenovo and Apple and a hundred others. Unlike the US case, the EU market definition potentially includes OS X in the relevant market. This doesn't matter for two reasons. First, Apple doesn't have a big enough chunk for Microsoft to lose monopoly influence (by a very large margin). Second, Apple does not sell OS X into the relevant market, refusing to license it to consumers (consumers in this case being mostly OEMs like Dell and large corporations buying site licenses).
When the user needs a PC, they aren't only looking for the Windows PC with the features they want.
This is true, but not really relevant to this case. This case is about MS having tons of power because OEMs have no viable choices other than Windows when buying an OS to preinstall. It's about them using that power to push other products from separate, preexisting markets thereby undermining free trade in those markets.
So it doesn't matter that you come up with the best OS ever. If you are competing against Microsoft in the Windows PC market space, you are taking on the entrenched monopoly and will lose.
Will, Microsoft doesn't actually make a PC so it is hard to take them on at all. It is nearly impossible to win in the desktop OS space. In numerous other markets like Web browsers, it is very hard to compete because MS illegally uses their Windows monopoly in ways that make it so that even if your browser is far superior to Internet Explorer (and really what browser isn't), you're unlikely to achieve the same level of market share. That's the illegal thing here and what is detrimental to the industry and market.
Microsoft are spinning this. They say that nobody senior was available, that is nonsense. The EU were sending Neelie Kroes, who is European Commissioner for Competition and about as senior as could possibly be. Microsoft got scared and ran away doing damage limitation PR on the way out.
Microsoft had the opportunity to reply to the Opera complaint and did so. Additionally it had the opportunity to state its opinion at the hearing.
What is a violation of antitrust law is determined by the authority. If you disagree Microsoft can feel free to go to court (as last time haha).
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.