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.
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.
I admit it's hard to feel sorry for microsoft. Anytime you see a company that's been as consistently evil as someone like MS has been finally get taken down by an even bigger, meaner bully you can't help but feel a little gleeful.
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome
Dolphin
Opera
Mercury
Atomic
Dingo
everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos.
You are aware that the economy of the European Union generates a GDP of over €12.629 trillion (US$17.578 trillion in 2011) ...and they were guilty as sin.
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
There are a number of profitable businesses that never make a profit. Someone already mentioned movies. Every so often you see people burned by movie contracts that pay a percentage of the profits rather than a percentage of the revenue.
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
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome Dolphin Opera Mercury Atomic Dingo
Besides Opera those are all skins around Safari, they are not new browsers. Opera's a little special because it's not a browser, it's more like a browser previewer where the browser actually runs on Operas servers.
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents to put into the public domain. That would hurt more than anything, but unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
It's a pipe dream because if the EU did that, the U.S. might turn around and do the same with EU companies in the U.S.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
And without that revenue from government contracts how do you expect them to keep innovating?
Catering to three year olds seems to be working for them.
which would leave the world in a much better place.
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents
Invalidate their business license. It's as simple as that. I don't know why it isn't done more often. You mess up in a car and your driver's license is in jeapordy with points, suspension or revocation. Hold businesses accountable for their actions via the licensing system as well. QED.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine.
Scaling. Because it doesn't do anything if you fine a company with 50k if said company makes 3 billion a quarter.
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine. What for?
Violating the terms of the settlement. And a big enough fine to make it not having been worth the effort to voilate the terms.
If the law can't prevent infractions, then it's toothless.
A Browser choice? Really? In 2012, 2011, 2010
Ah well, it's well past so we should let them off the hook. No! Of course not!
Today these idiots come from MS, tommorow it will be you, or your company, or your family
You mean these "idiots" coming at coportations who repeatedly break the law and making them stop? Of course you and your family should be above the law!
or your bank.
Which one? Both of mine are now owned by the government. Most of the rest are being investigated for large scale price fixing.
So, yeah, these "idiots" are coming at my bank. Good on them. Nail the bastards to the wall for illegal acts costing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Through illegal companies have illegally enriched themselves (i.e. taken my money through illegal means) to the tune of hundreds of billions---vastly larger than all the thefts and burlgaries combined.
Yet you seem to think that people coming after them are "idiots" and somehow your or your family should be above the law.
You wouldn't call the police idiots for pursuing a burglar who robbed you. But because you clearly feel that one day you maybe able to get these ill-gotten gains for yourself you seem to think it's OK.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Have the standards for posting comments gotten so low that people don't even completely read the submission title? (I already know nobody reads the article or the whole summary even...)
Here's a quick (rough) overview for you and the mods who put you at +5:
1. Microsoft was accused of unfairly using its monopoly in the OS market to get people to use IE over Netscape.
2. Microsoft and the EU came to an agreement that Microsoft would offer a choice of browsers to users., or be punished.
3. Microsoft is now accused of breaking that agreement.
The fact that firefox, opera and safari are easily reachable with a Google search is completely irrelevant. Microsoft made an agreement with the EU and broke it.
And one more thing: No, most computer users do not go and download a browser. You can call them lazy and/or stupid all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that many people just don't care what browser they are using. They turn on the computer, and they start using the internet. The browser is completely irrelevant to them. In the context of Microsoft's OS monopoly in the 90s, it makes perfect sense for users to be asked what browser they want to use up front.
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.
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.
Apple doesn't ban other browsers on iOS, there are dozens.
All the others are just skins running on top of the Safari renderer. Opera is the exception, and they are were only able to pull it off with a weird hack (with the renderer running sever-side).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?