Slashdot Mirror
EC Sends Statement of Objections To Microsoft For Violating Anti-Trust Agreement
dkleinsc writes "Three years ago, Microsoft came to an agreement with EU regulators that required them to provide users with a choice of web browsers. Last July, they found Microsoft in breach of that agreement. Today, they announced that this will result in charges, potentially resulting in fines as large as $7 billion."
Microsoft gets one last chance to defend itself.
I doubt the fine would be anything close to $7 billion. I bet the amount won't even be enough for Microsoft to worry about.
Something like a ban on Microsoft bidding for EU government contracts would do more damage.
The only way to make corporations behave is to make the fine firstly remove all profits from the nefarious acts and then add enough on top that the risk/reward ratio is larger than 1 so that they don't do bad things on the chance that they're not caught often enough to matter.
In other words, the fine must really hurt otherwise it's just the cost of doing business (c.f. the paltry 1bn that intel had to spend for years of blatantly illegal market fixing).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
On one hand, everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos, even if in just a few short years technological and market developments have proven conclusively that the EU lawsuit was full of shit.
On the other hand, it is microsoft.
How will slashdot react? for once, acting with a bit of consistency and integrity? or more MS bashing? or both?
I could understand Microsoft being a pain in the browser department when they were building an entire stack on top of I.E. with:
a) Active Desktop / Channels
b) Active-x (i.e.windows binaries as a web format)
c) A specialized Java that ran much faster than standard Java
d) Deep ties with IIS
And then for the later IE6 years, I can understand the advantages of only offering a crippled web browser once they won the browser wars to keep people locked into the Microsoft desktop.
But today's newer web apps are being built browser and OS independent, a lot of them are built on Macs and a lot migrate their functionality over from Linux. IIS specific software isn't popular, and even where it is deep ties with IE isn't. Today's IE is rather full featured and aims at standards compliance.
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
to delete internet explorer , dave.
Good. At least with windows you can install a new browser. Next go after the ipad.
They should have just fined MS in July 2011. Heavily fined. No-one will take these things seriously without serious enforcement.
"A sanction could top $7.4 billion or 10 percent of its revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 -- but the final figure is expected to be lower, as the infringement covered only a short period of time."
Notice that the last part is quite important. Or even the part where $7.4 billion is 10 percent of it's fiscal year's revenue. I think whomever wrote the story was going for shock value.
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
You know, maybe Microsoft should have opted not to provide a browser with Windows. You know, let people install Windows then let them surf the web to download a browser of their choice. Oh, wait. Or maybe they can hop online and mail order a copy of their browser of choice. Oh, wait.
Is Internet Explorer considered a free product they were giving away? Aren't most web browsers free products? Can someone explain it to me how it was damaging for them to do that?
why EC doesn't sue them for using wrong connector. I thought all mobile phones must use the same one
Lets see an international law that says a corporation's country of origin is allowed to choose a charity to donate the money to. Taking billions from foreign countries is far too tempting, especially when you're having money problems. This is much like in ancient Rome, where tax collectors were given their pay as part of the taxes they collected, and they were responsible for deciding how much tax to take -- and we wonder why no one trusted tax collectors! This isn't much different. An appropriate law enforcement scheme would see sentences that directly impact the governing bodies of the corporations, while not creating a conflict of interest with fines that are exacted.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Next up the regulators - the same treatment for the iPad and the Safari browser...er...right?
Microsoft quite possibly has more (and better) lawyers than the E.U.
Good luck...
The idea that a corporation needs to provide a choice of browsers on their own OS is asinine. It may have been valid back when all of the OS hooks only used IE for anything, but that's no longer the case. Chrome, FF, Opera, etc, all work fine, and setting them up for default operations works.
Apple does the same thing with OSx, and forget iOS, where the only real browser experience is Safari because they actually DO limit the javascript engine access for other apps.
This, really, makes no sense, at all.
I was thinking the same thing. Considering how many ipads have been sold vs PC's this year. All Ipads come pre-loaded with safari. Sure you can get other browsers but that requires one to do work. I don't see how that is different than the Win 7 system.
This will help bail us out!
Back to working 2 hour days and retiring at 34!
No, that's not a valid defense. All that does is argue that Apple is committing the same crimes as Microsoft.
Another way of thinking about it: If I steal $1000, and you steal $2000, does that make me not guilty?
I am officially gone from
My guess would be as soon as Apple go out of their way to stop other browsers working on their machines, people will start to notice.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
What trial lawyers could not accomplish in 300 years of perfecting the profession, governments have accomplished with a few minutes of legislative decree.
I'm sure the $7B will come in handy for supporting the EU member states' addiction to spending and entitlements.
Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
On the other hand, outlook, the email prog that hackers love, stays and no one even mentions it. Even tho there's a bunch of not free email progs out there that have to compete.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
iPads, iPhones, iPod touches... all bundled with Safari. As an added bonus, all software for those devices must have Apple's approval (which can be revoked) and must be sold through Apple's store (where they take a cut). I like Microsoft products and I like Apple products, I just feel like the legal standards being applied to the two companies don't match up too well.
This steaming pile of undemocratic garbage is spoiling for a fight. Its got a lot of gravy train mouths to feed and the EU population and nation states are in wrack and ruin through this EU social and economic disaster, ne ' experiment'. These states are going to refuse an Budget. Which means the business and free market hating communist scum at the centre of this new 'Empire' need money, taxes, and 'funding' to further their imperium.
Whats a few billion between friends.
Europeans are approaching a time where they need to decide if this really is what they wanted. At the end of the day, Whatever charge you leverage against MS - its going to be dragged from the population directly or indirectly in higher living/usage costs, and the money will be taken by an entity that burns it as if confetti. It won't be used in products, or innovation, on poured away on a gravy train of unfit political new age elite EU types.
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine. What for? A Browser choice? Really? In 2012, 2011, 2010 - I never lacked choice in browsers you stupid bastards.
Even if I was an MS hater - I'd not like to see this kind of bullshit levied in a fantasy crime by these morons. Today these idiots come from MS, tommorow it will be you, or your company, or your family, or your bank. Its just the start.
We`re all equal
That's not the argument.
The argument is that if it is ok for you to steal $2,000, why is it not ok for me to steal $1,000.
There is a big difference there.
You suggested that both our stealing is wrong. The defense would be "You seem ok with the other guy stealing $2,000. That suggests to us that this is a politically motivated action and not based on the merits of your case because if it were, we would expect suit against the more egregious offense where there is none".
Oh im sorry, if you want your application to work "properly" you have to go through this single, uninstallable store and pay Microsoft 30% commission & a n$ digital cert provider for the privilege.
you ain't seen a shitstorm yet, but believe its coming.
There's so many other problems in our society right now, this is like removing a needle out of someone's shoulder who has a sword piercing their chest.
Doesn't help much in comparison to all the other problems |:
Firefox: www.firefox.com
Opera: www.opera.com
Safari: www.apple.com/safari
WTF? I can find dozens of other browsers with a cursory google search. Why is it up to MS to pre-package a bunch of browsers and let the user choose one that will no doubt already be an out-of-date pile of security holes by the time the PC hits the desk?
Have people become so lazy (or stupid) that they can't even go download a browser by themselves?
Fuck sake people. Me thinks this is just another big government money grab. After all, EU governments have a lot of mouths to feed.
They're already doing it on iOS (and getting away with it). The other browsers on iOS are just skins, using the Safari rendering engine.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
It was a bad decision to tie the IE web browser function into the Windows operating system. It was a bad decision to fight the anti-monopoly folks when they came calling. It was a bad decision to drag their feet about offering browser alternatives in Windows. And, now, it has been a bad decision by Microsoft to blow off the EU regulators when they were ordered to include browser alternatives. Microsoft was gifted with their Windows monopoly thanks to being in the right place in the right year with the right software. Now, however, the world has moved on and the Windows monopoly is tottering. Microsoft should have just quietly enjoyed their monopoly while planning for its eventual demise rather than attempting to enjoy it in perpetuity. Now, the entire Microsoft 'empire' built on the Windows monopoly is in jeopardy...and the end will probably come much sooner than anyone thinks. It was stupid back a few years to ignore the EU and it is even more stupid now, given the new market realities that Microsoft faces. Microsoft needs new leadership...they need it really soon...and even then it might be too late.
I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that
(Humor lesson... it's not the joke, it's how you tell it.)
Free Martian Whores!
Except no "stealing" is occuring and no "crimes" (i.e criminal law) are being committed.
I know it's not a REAL defense, I was using a joke to voice my frustrations. :) Although, I could sure use $2000, and if I get to steal it without any legal problems because the law is after you and your $1000, it sure would be tempting!
Correct. I was merely adapting his analogy to more accurately fit how it could be used as a defense instead of the straw man he'd made ;)
I was thinking about iOS apps and that you're not allowed to list anything on the app store that competes against Apples own.
I guess they have two mitigating factors, firstly that its always been locked in, in that you've always bought the device knowing these limitations; rather than Windows where it was essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, there is a competitor in Android that has by some metrics a larger user base than iOS.
It would seem Apples 'arch enemy' is in fact doing a great deal of good for the company...
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
I can think of a hundred modern software providers that limit my choices in much more anti-competetive ways than MS shipping a browser with its OS. Anyone ever try to use a smart phone? WTF is this bundled browser on my phone?? Why don't I get a list of alternatives?? What about Google's new Chrome book? Does it supply me with a list of alternative browsers? etc. I can't fathom how we singled MS out for this. I know it's more legally complicated than simply bundling, but I mean, come on. Way worse shit is happening these days we just let slide, so what's up with the anti-MS culture STILL. And this late in the game? It's been a decade and more... So why this now, right when MS is poised to compete on the the computing market again? ... And so we fine them? This just stinks of bias.
So, why doesn't the same rule apply to OS X, iOS, Android, etc.? They also come with preinstalled browser.
No. Because Apple does not have a Monopoly or near Monopoly in a market segment. ("iPhones" and "iPads" are not a market segment, "smartphones" and "tablets" are.)
Microsoft wasn't fined for pushing IE, but for leveraging Windows' position as a Monopoly tu push IE.
You can already lose your copyrights for abuse of those copyrights.
And you could still only get "Microsoft(r) Windows(tm)" from Microsoft, so precisely why would losing the copyrights bankrupt Microsoft? Not to mention the XBox isn't copyrighted.
The rule is not a rule about operating systems that come with a pre-installed browser, it is a rule set in an agreement that Microsoft entered into with the EU as part of the settlement of charges related to Microsoft illegally leveraging an existing monopoly in the personal computer operating system market.
The makers of the operating systems you make have not entered into similar agreements, or even been charged with the same offense.
Its like asking why parole terms that apply to a particular convict don't apply to other citizens who haven't been convicted of (or even charged with) the crime that the convict was convicted of, much less subjected to similar parole terms.
>Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
That's because you have no sense of history and why browsers became free (as in cost).
Microsoft abused its monopoly position to essentially make it impossible for anyone to market a browser that was paid for by the users. They licensed Spyglass Mosaic, promising Spyglass that Microsoft would remit a percentage of revenue to Spyglass. Spyglass thought this was great. The thing is that Microsoft gave IE away, so they didn't have to give Spyglass a plug nickel, much to Spyglass' dismay (don't ever "partner" with Microsoft is the lesson here).
But the motivation was not necessarily to shut down Spyglass. The motivation was to choke off the revenue that Netscape was getting for their browser, which was viewed as a threat to Microsoft's Windows OS itself (because a browser is almost a complete OS in itself missing only a few things to turn it into one). The goal was to reduce the amount of money people were willing to pay for a browser to 0 dollars and wreck the market for browsers. It worked, taking Netscape from a healthy growing company to being a minor subsidiary of AOL, bought for a song and then just not existing at all.
--
BMO
No. First, because "someone else is also breaking the same law" is not a legally valid defense (in some cases, it may be a strategy to avoid or reduce charges you are facing, if the other someone is perceived by the government to be worse than you, and your cooperation actually makes it easier to hold them accountable.)
Second, because there doesn't appear to even be a colorable claim that Apple isn't doing what Microsoft is accused of doing, to wit, violating an agreement with the EU that was entered into as part of the settlement of a past antitrust action. The specific browser choice requirement Microsoft faces isn't a generally applicable rule, its a special restriction that Microsoft agreed to as part of settling charges of illegally leveraging a monopoly in the past.
I think the recent EU action demonstrates why that is not an actual benefit Microsoft receives from defying the rules it agreed to in settling the EU antitrust action.
Breaking a legally-binding agreement that they entered into rather than raising an actual defense against charges that they violated European antitrust law.
Which legally-binding agreement entered into to settle past charges does Apple break with OS X and/or iOS?
essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications.
I never had any problems running Netscape or any other browser on any Windows PC during the old browser wars.
FC Closer
which operating system has the largest number of different browsers available for it?
As much as I hate Microsoft business practices and shady patent claims against linux the EU is looking at ways to get money in any way they can even if it includes extortion which this is the case. Come on already, this web browser war has ended and firefox, opera, and chrome have won. Windows needs IE so people can download the other web browsers you fucking European trash twits. U.S should move all their troops out of Europe and back home, the cold war ended in early 1990's, soviet union collapsed on it's own. If EU does not like windows method maybe they should use Linux or BSD.
Fines. Browser lottery. Let me know when they're actually doing something that will benefit people, not just waste time with grandstanding.
If they intended to fix the annoyances in Windows, the security issues, that would be nice. All they're really going to do is fix the problems no person actually had.
Why don't they go fight a war on drugs or something.
based on M$'s revenue, I would charge them at least 20 to 30 billion.
while
"As much as we like to think that Linux is a good OS, it's not a drop in replacement for Windows"
Web browsing, E-mail, Word Processing and Media Player, what's not good enough ?
Windows 7 Vs Ubuntu 9.04, Sep 2009
AccountKiller
I just feel like the legal standards being applied to the two companies don't match up too well.
Of course they don't, since MS was punished for monopoly abuse. You can't abuse a monopoly you don't have.
Free Martian Whores!
They have been punished (after full due process, appeals etc blah blah) for being in breach of EC rules, directives etc. They have been fined oodles of money for non-compliance with EC directives before and eventually caved. This browser choice thing was bright and shiny and in full view of Microsoft from Ballmer to their lowliest serf. They failed to comply with the EC ruling. They are going to get hammered. And rightfully so.
It doesn't matter if it's an "honest mistake" which is a bollocks argument, because changing the install image which implemented browser choice would require a high level of approval.
What a pack of whining shills crying "Mercy!" where none is deserved.
Sorry, but it's not the same crime. MS had to agree to this to avoid prosecution for (??abuse of monopoly?? maybe. I forget the exact charge). It did agree. Now it's broken the agreement with the court. So what we're back to is punishment for the crime for which they had originally been found guilty.
E.g., I have a distant relative who was arrested for drunk driving, and let off after promising the court not to drink anymore. He's now in the slammer because he showed up in court drunk on some other business. There's talk of revoking his license, or perhaps just putting a breathealyzed on his car, so he can't start it if he's been drinking. But showing up in court drunk wasn't THAT big an offense. Perhaps, but he violated his promise to the court, and the court noticed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Sorry Judge, you can't send me to jail for that. It'd be unjust! There's hundreds of crooks who've not been caught and punished yet. You can't jail me until you've seen to all those others! It's unfair I say!"
Microsoft needs to take responsibility. They screwed up. They need to take whatever the EC decides is the punishment like the men/women/other that they are and move along. Maybe the shareholders might also decide that there's been too many failures of management and slough some of the higher level dross who make these epic mistakes off the back of the company.
Bureaucrats need their 18 hours of sleep per day.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It's more like jailing someone for walking down the street while others are permitted to do so.
There is no crime here, if you really believe that please show me the article that says that one must sell the competition prodcuts in order to sell ours, even when a monopoly exists. (The EU law is translated into various languages so I'm sure you'll find one that fits.)
I hope Microsoft tells the EU to go fuck itself. There was never anything that kept people from downloading their own browser, and demonizing microsoft for fucking providing one for free is bullshit. If they didn't supply a browser, someone would have fucking cried about that too. I'm sick of this bullshit, people need to learn to help themselves and the filthy fucking EU can stuff it.
Wasn't my point. Still doesn't explain outlook. The one the killed off paid email progs.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com