Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fined €561 Million For Non-compliance With EU Browser Settlement
Seeteufel writes "Microsoft's failure to comply with an antitrust settlement about browser choice has severe consequences. The European Commissioner for Competition Almunia set a fine of €561 million (~$732 million) for the unprecedented break of agreement. Microsoft admitted its mistakes and offered further concessions."
A pretty costly bug it seems. From the EC press release: "This is the first time that the Commission has had to fine a company for non-compliance with a commitments decision. In the calculation of the fine the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, the need to ensure a deterrent effect of the fine and, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that Microsoft has cooperated with the Commission and provided information which helped the Commission to investigate the matter efficiently."
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Has a fine like this *ever* been paid in the U.S. though in actuality?
It either gets fed to the appeals system which reduces it or ties the payment up for so long it's meaningless or it gets ignored and forgotten.
I can't remember one example of a company just paying the fine and moving on, actually. Does someone else here remember anything like this?
It sure is a *fine* story!
Who ever said fines were supposed to be proportional to perceived severity of crime? Especially across different judicial systems.
Fines need to take account of ability to pay. And they also need to be designed to be of a size that will stop reoffending. GIven that Microsoft have reoffended, that's a good indication that the original fine wasn't big enough.
This was done under EU anti-monopoly legislation. Microsoft was at the time judged to have a monopoly share of the PC OS market. And as such they couldn't use that monopoly to leverage advantage into the web browser market.
Since neither Google nor Apple have monopoly shares in any OS platform, they should not and cannot be required to do this.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords. Apparently laundering money for terrorists and drug lords is only 2.5 (roughly) times as bad as not complying with an EU court settlement.
Neither is as bad as sharing a song over bittorrent.
No sig today...
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
"Oh, Mr Murderer, you're not currently killing anyone? Well then be on your way, you little scamp!"
what about the windows RT lock down and the win 8 app store how will that go under EU rules?
Yes, you are, and so is every other person who's already posted the same thing as you.
Microsoft were referred to the EU Competition Commission due to a complain by Opera. They were found to hold a monopoly on desktop Operating Systems. They were found to be using this monopoly to illegally extend their monopoly into another market, namely web browsers. The original action (being forced to provide Browser Choice) was intended to address their illegal action. Microsoft subsequently ignored this, for 14 months, all the time claiming that they were in compliance. This fine is a result of their actions in ignoring a previous agreement with the EU.
You can stamp your feet and whine all you like, but that's the law and those are the facts.
Apple are not expected to comply with the same rules before they have not been referred to the EU Competition Commission and thus legally there is no monopoly status, and therefore can not be using that monopoly to extend their market in other areas.
If you believe that Apple are a monopoly and that they are harming consumers through their actions relating to that monopoly, please feel free to complain to the EU Competition Commission.
not necessary now doesn't mean that it didn't happen, of which they were found guilty. The fact that even after they were found guilty they continued to let it happen and denied it, is why they are now seeking this to be a deterrent.
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
They tested whether they could get away with it and arranged some (fairly transparent) level of deniability. It is really simple: This feature was on the "must work" list for all releases. Such items cannot simply be overlooked unless you are really, really, really incompetent. Not even MS manages to reach this level and certainly not for that long.
Well, now they know that they cannot get away with more of this immoral and economically damaging (to all but them) business practice. I also think the EU put the fine on the low end, even given their "cooperation".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Microsoft was convicted and lost the appeal. If you were on parole and violated it they would nail you even if it was an accident!
It isn't fair when a human on parole forgets some legal detail and is nailed. That's 1 person who is not a lawyer trying to continue living their life. Microsoft is a large number of people with their own law firms who are paid to deal with such things. ZERO EXCUSES for almost any human (except the politically connected) and they can have reasonable excuses; Microsoft doesn't.
Just because they are a corporation (that is, a person in the USA) doesn't mean they should get special treatment.
The fact the EU can even fine them a decent amount shows they can't just bribe their way out of the legal system; like in the USA... Weak punishments just become part of doing business, nothing changes - the whole purpose is to force compliance!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news