For a company in which just one member of it is worth at least 100 times that, how is this going to do anything?
Look at as a shot across the bow. Maximum anti-competetive fines are 10% of worldwide turnover. And as "aggrevating circumstances" they give examples like:
- repeated infringement of the same type by the same undertaking(s);
- refusal to cooperate with or attempts to obstruct the Commission in carrying out its investigations;
Obviously, Neelie is not a programmer and has never tried to write a program in a Microsoft environment, or even tried to figure out what their documentation is supposed to mean... If anything.
Nope, that she isn't. She only takes the word from the person appointed to decide if Microsoft is compliant or not.
And, oh, that person was selected from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
MSFT paid the earlier fine on time (which they are appealing now) so I suspect they will pay this one as well but appeal the decision. So they could run the legal game but they will not profit directly from it and I suspect there is a very finite types of appeals they can file.
About the unclear obligations I think that Microsoft has one really major hurdle to overcome: their non-compliance wasn't decided by EU appointees but the person was choses from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
These are obviously not suitable for critical listening, but then nearly all stereo equipement made these days are not suitable for this task
Amen to that. And I believe that generally the most critical part of any sound reproduction system are the parts that converts signals between the physical world and the electrical (pick-ups, microphones, speakers). On the other hand I suspect that most people use their systems for background music (per your definition). Guess I could compare it with drinking wine, some are after a nice buzz with while others do like a really nice wine. Come to think of it, there's about as much mind games in the wine industry as in hi-fi. But that doesn't change that some wines are damn fine.
My brain likes my Dahlquist DQ 20s. But I realised that they did sound really good when a friends girlfriend who wasn't into stereo stuff said to him that he could buy speakers like that if he wanted . And the speakers are about 40 inches high and 20 inches wide lacking somewhat of shyness in the design.:)
"Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and, unfortunately, many do."
- Richard D. Pierce
It's about the SMB protocols which Microsofts network application-level protocol and it was decided that the documentation that Microsoft offered just wasn't good enough.
And the documentation wasn't decided as poor by any EU civil servants sitting in their ivory towers but by an expert that Microsoft THEMSELVES had submitted as a an expert just for that specific task.
So step away from the Microsoft kool-aid.
Even simpler, they'll just go after the Microsoft EMEA board of directors. Microsoft EMEA is the corporate entity responsible for business in Europe, Middle East and Africa (hence EMEA) and they have their offices in Ireland.
Actually. MSFT has a corporate presence in the EU since it's very hard to do any serious business without it. It's called Microsoft EMEA (EMEA == Europe, Middle East, Africa) and has its own board of directors who of course are responisble for following local laws. Compare with an EU company having an subsidiary in the US, it doesn't shield the company from US laws just because there is an out-of-country ownership of the subsidiary.
If MSFT refuses to pay then they will have a very good chance of piercing the corporate veil and going after those directors who authorize the non-payment (after appeals being exhausted etc).
Unless they want to stop making business in the EU. Which they wont because pulling out of that big a market would just crash the MFST stock value (think of it, who on the global market would by NEW Microsoft systems if the company can't be trusted to stay). And if that happens, here come the shareholder lawsuit.
Now WHY can't they stay and NOT pay? Think of it... consider me the owner of international company Bunkotronics and it's a non-US company (turning the table for the example). I have a subsidiary company in the US with a big enough revenue stream... I don't understand the business laws of the country and get fined.
Now, the subsidiary company will of course have board members that live in the US. So the fine lands on their desk. I tell them "Dont pay it"... they say "but, but, but that would be illegal not to! We'd end up in court PERSONALLY for violating business rules!". Oh, sorry, I guess you didn't sign up for personal bancrupcy/jailtime when you got on the board....
So they pay.
Slashdot Mirror
For a company in which just one member of it is worth at least 100 times that, how is this going to do anything?
g islation/98c9_en.html
Look at as a shot across the bow. Maximum anti-competetive fines are 10% of worldwide turnover. And as "aggrevating circumstances" they give examples like:
- repeated infringement of the same type by the same undertaking(s);
- refusal to cooperate with or attempts to obstruct the Commission in carrying out its investigations;
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/le
Obviously, Neelie is not a programmer and has never tried to write a program in a Microsoft environment, or even tried to figure out what their documentation is supposed to mean... If anything.
Nope, that she isn't. She only takes the word from the person appointed to decide if Microsoft is compliant or not.
And, oh, that person was selected from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
MSFT paid the earlier fine on time (which they are appealing now) so I suspect they will pay this one as well but appeal the decision. So they could run the legal game but they will not profit directly from it and I suspect there is a very finite types of appeals they can file.
About the unclear obligations I think that Microsoft has one really major hurdle to overcome: their non-compliance wasn't decided by EU appointees but the person was choses from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
These are obviously not suitable for critical listening, but then nearly all stereo equipement made these days are not suitable for this task
:)
Amen to that. And I believe that generally the most critical part of any sound reproduction system are the parts that converts signals between the physical world and the electrical (pick-ups, microphones, speakers). On the other hand I suspect that most people use their systems for background music (per your definition). Guess I could compare it with drinking wine, some are after a nice buzz with while others do like a really nice wine. Come to think of it, there's about as much mind games in the wine industry as in hi-fi. But that doesn't change that some wines are damn fine.
My brain likes my Dahlquist DQ 20s. But I realised that they did sound really good when a friends girlfriend who wasn't into stereo stuff said to him that he could buy speakers like that if he wanted . And the speakers are about 40 inches high and 20 inches wide lacking somewhat of shyness in the design.
"Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and, unfortunately, many do." - Richard D. Pierce
It's about the SMB protocols which Microsofts network application-level protocol and it was decided that the documentation that Microsoft offered just wasn't good enough. And the documentation wasn't decided as poor by any EU civil servants sitting in their ivory towers but by an expert that Microsoft THEMSELVES had submitted as a an expert just for that specific task. So step away from the Microsoft kool-aid.
Even simpler, they'll just go after the Microsoft EMEA board of directors. Microsoft EMEA is the corporate entity responsible for business in Europe, Middle East and Africa (hence EMEA) and they have their offices in Ireland.
Actually. MSFT has a corporate presence in the EU since it's very hard to do any serious business without it. It's called Microsoft EMEA (EMEA == Europe, Middle East, Africa) and has its own board of directors who of course are responisble for following local laws. Compare with an EU company having an subsidiary in the US, it doesn't shield the company from US laws just because there is an out-of-country ownership of the subsidiary. If MSFT refuses to pay then they will have a very good chance of piercing the corporate veil and going after those directors who authorize the non-payment (after appeals being exhausted etc).
They will pay up.
Unless they want to stop making business in the EU. Which they wont because pulling out of that big a market would just crash the MFST stock value (think of it, who on the global market would by NEW Microsoft systems if the company can't be trusted to stay). And if that happens, here come the shareholder lawsuit.
Now WHY can't they stay and NOT pay? Think of it... consider me the owner of international company Bunkotronics and it's a non-US company (turning the table for the example). I have a subsidiary company in the US with a big enough revenue stream... I don't understand the business laws of the country and get fined. Now, the subsidiary company will of course have board members that live in the US. So the fine lands on their desk. I tell them "Dont pay it"... they say "but, but, but that would be illegal not to! We'd end up in court PERSONALLY for violating business rules!". Oh, sorry, I guess you didn't sign up for personal bancrupcy/jailtime when you got on the board.... So they pay.