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."

12 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft Requested It by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Microsoft Requested It by Jurily · · Score: 4, Informative

      Netscape had the market volume and could easily have survived a few bad versions with their market share. However Microsoft made sure that didn't happen.

      Microsoft was not in a position at the time to bury Netscape. They did it themselves.

      Way back in April, I wrote that Netscape made the "single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make" by deciding to rewrite their code from scratch. Lou Montulli, one of the 5 programming superstars who did the original version of Navigator, emailed me to say, "I agree completely, it's one of the major reasons I resigned from Netscape." This one decision cost Netscape 3 years. That's three years in which the company couldn't add new features, couldn't respond to the competitive threads from Internet Explorer, and had to sit on their hands while Microsoft completely ate their lunch.

    2. Re:Microsoft Requested It by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are arrested, you'd get a fair trial. Same goes for Microsoft. You say they broke the law, but if Microsoft thinks otherwise, they have the right to prove they are not guilty. This (now canceled) hearing is one of the ways Microsoft can use to show they are not guilty.

      No, this hearing was nothing like a trial. Even Microsoft admitted that the hearing had no legal implications. It was purely an opportunity for Microsoft to do some lobbying before the real case actually starts.

      Also, it was Microsoft which canceled the hearing. They claim it's because of the competition law meeting at the same time, meaning that higher level officials would attend the meeting rather than the hearing. But Microsoft is lying again, because they know very well that these hearing are usually only attended by staff level personell, in addition to the competition commissioner. And the competition commissioner was scheduled to be there until Microsoft canceled.

      Read more about Microsoft's dishonesty in this comment.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  2. I've done that by Late+Adopter · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's certainly not the first time anyone's skipped work to go to a con.

  3. great quote from an older article by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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....
  4. Wish I could do that by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  5. Re:Two ways to read this by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They offered to find and pay for a location themselves as the meeting room wasn't available outside of the window,

    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();
  6. Re:What is the big deal? by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Stop crying, start coding. by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If MS didn't have such a lion's share of the market, this would not be any more of an issue that it is with Apple.

    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.

    The reason it's an issue is because we've forgotten sportsmanship. If you're losing in a game, you don't (or shouldn't) cry UNFAIR!

    If the other guy is cheating at a game and winning (breaking the law), why shouldn't there be any consequences for the cheater?

    If people think that a crappy browser being too is too integrated into a mediocre OS is unfair, then WRITE AN OS THAT PEOPLE WANT

    So to compete in the browser market, all browser vendors should be required to create their own OS?

    It's just too easy to blame failure (in this case, failure to gain a majority market share) on unfair play.

    Breaking the law is not "unfair play"?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  8. Re:Two ways to read this by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah or the EC has decided they want more money. Hmm, our coffers are looking a little low, I know lets sue MS again, hmm which product to chose ..

    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.

    While I don't always agree with MS's practices, having a competition hearing at a time when the regional experts are unavailable is stupid.

    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.

    I think a reasonable request has been turned down for political reasons.

    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.
  9. Re:What is the big deal? by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The browser 'market?' How can you have a market for something that is free?

    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?

    Just cause something is against the law doesn't mean I can't have an opinion either.

    Well, you clearly weren't even informed about the law. Shouldn't you at least educate yourself before commenting?

    Basically, if I get into business x, and I do so well (cry all you want, microsoft did THE BEST cause of their business strategy whether you like it or not)

    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?

    in that business that I'm the top dog by far, I'm not allowed to offer new services and such exclusively with my product? How the hell does that work? I get fucked in the ass for being successful?

    No, you get "fucked in the ass" for breaking the law.

    I thought Obama was only elected a couple of months ago, that's not enough time to get such laws on the books.

    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.
  10. Re:What is the big deal? by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your evidence and the EU is too vague and bullshitish to even constitute Anti-trust violation.

    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.

    You can bundle any products you want and MS did. The nature of the bundle was not violating anti-trust laws in any way shape or form. A company is not legally obligated to support their competitors and this judgment does just that.

    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.

    It forces MS to ensure their competitors safety, because they made bad choices.

    So what you are saying is that there should be no consequences if you break the law?

    All this nonsense over a so called bundle, when the average consumer can barely operate a computer is moot.

    So-called bundle? Are you denying that IE is bundled with Windows? And how is the average consumer's computer skills relevant?

    The EC didn't take into account all factors and made a premature judgment.

    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.

    If the average person was capable of using linux or knew wtf a library was, then use, abuse of dominance could be shown.

    This case is about browsers, not operating systems.

    If you wanted Netscape, then ask them to manage better instead of mismanaging. A company can not and should not be responsible for its competitors survival, it goes against the very nature of business.

    Netscape is not the only victim of Microsoft's illegal actions.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.