EU fines Microsoft over $600 Million Dollars

[Wonk]

(just announced on CNN, no link yet)

edit: This is about RealNetworks' RealPlayer and Apple's QuickTime software.


Semi-related link http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8257441.htm

[Kellanved]

1. yep ( and even better)

497.2 million Euros.


Edit:
120 days to open the Windows interfaces, to allow competitors to create Windows-compatible solutions; 90 days to remove the Media Player from Windows.

[spinbaby]

2. Did you hear the whine?

They think the fine is too high because they didn't know that what they were doing was illegal.

Monopolistic bastards.

[Kellanved]

3. well

"ignorance is no defence in law".

[Nlighten1]

4. Sweet! I want a European version of Windows.

[cspiguy]

5. Bloody Stupid

EU is out for a mugging. Completely baseless and ridiculous.

[Kellanved]

8. Do you really think so?

First, Microsoft bundles products that do not really belong to an operating system. The Media Player would never have reached it's market share without MS misusing the OS monopoly. (nor would have the Internet Explorer)

Second: Microsoft does prohibit competitors to have a look at the interfaces, thus stopping them from offering compatible solutions.

So why is the decision baseless? Were Sun and Real wrong to sue against MS clearly breaching EU laws?
OK, 500 million sounds excessive, but that figure is expected to drop - and it is about as much as La Roche had to pay for using it's position in the European food supplements market.

[cspiguy]

9. Oh please. Sometimes I get free Popcorn when I rent a DVD.

ANyone can download and use Apples', Reals', player for FREE. Nobody loses ANYTHING. The whole think is a scummy shakedown and anyone who thinks otherwise is just in it for the Schadenfreude.

[Kellanved]

10. I don't get it

Just because it's Microsoft antitrust laws should be ignored? Did you attack the La Roche decision? Volkswagen?


Fines in Europe, for normal persons as for companies, are measured by the capabilities of the defendant. The intention is to hurt the offender without crippling him. MS happens to be one rich company, thus the huge amount of money.

And your popcorn comparison is off.

Imagine a cinema with several independent Popcorn sellers, all doing their business. There is no other cinema nearby, if the people want movies, this cinema it is.
Then the cinema owner comes along and decides to print the tickets on bags filled with his Popcorn - they can't decide, they get the popcorn whatever they want, or not with the ticket.
Very few will opt to buy popcorn from one of the original merchants, even if their quality is better; so those original merchants will be forced to give their Popcorn away for free too.
But it doesn't stop there: even for free few people will take their popcorn, they already have some and humans only have two hands after all - this rules out other ways of financing, like ads on the bags.
Without customers and income, the original popcorn stands will be out of business soon; with them out of the way the cinema owner can begin charging for the popcorn.


Edit: slightly changed the story to tickets printed on pocorn bags - it fits better. Original line:
"Then the cinema owner comes along and decides to give all visitors his Popcorn with the ticket - they can't decide, they get the popcorn whatever they want or not."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. DINGDINGDINGDING we have a winnah!

:yourock:

[Village Idiot]

18. Good Analogy...

Appeals processes being what they are, unfortunately, this
should play out by 2016.....

[BonjourUSA]

13. 500 mllion sounds excessive !? Only one week of sales for MS !

[Occulus]

14. Agree to buy a car with the hood welded shut

and then explain to me how Micro$oft Window$ is a good thing.

[AP]

19. As computers become the way people receive news and information...

...this is going to, restrospectively, be a huge decision.

This is like if one company could have dominated the entire market for TVs 30 years ago, and it's worse that that, because, at least TV broadcasters didn't need to enter into contracts with TV mnfg's to get a license to interface with the TV if you wanted your information properly decoded.

[WillParkinson]

6. Oh gosh...

Bill Gates might have to open the coin purse.

[Occulus]

15. Now, now,

to be fair, he does donate a lot to charity. Not as much as he could, admittedly, but both he and his wife are in charge of a number of charities, foundations, and so forth.

Bill Gates is somewhat responsible with his wealth. Let's not criticize him for what is a good example to the wealthy.

edited to add: I think his business practices re: Windows suck.

Innovation, not money. Micro$oft doesn't get that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. I welcome the opportunity to introduce to you all a new specimen:

The IT Freeper!

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=125893

Communist Western Europe continues its assault on capitalism:

(link to FT story about fine)

Isolationism and socialism separately are bad enough, but Europe seems intent on combining the two to stamp out any hint of entreprenurial innovation that dares to encroach upon its borders.

No wonder the population of Europe is declining at catastrophic rates. Anyone with half a brain can see the long soup and bread lines that will surely be a part of the E.U.S.S.R.'s future.

Keep in mind this is, in theory, an IT discussion forum.

[sweetheart]

12. Americans misunderstanding european law

American and european anti-trust laws are different and this
article explains it rather well. This is not about the general
slander of european markets, (which i feel is better focused on
venture capital and insolvency law) and is rather a case of market
abuse that will cost MSFT 2% of its profits.

Myself i still think the company should be broken up, but the
european competition authority has done a good job of keeping it
light.


.
.
What Microsoft’s US lawyers find irksome is not the fine but the huge damage of setting a precedent that could outlaw a core Microsoft strategy: bundling new products with Windows. The relevant law, Article 82, prohibits behaviour by dominant firms which is abusive, that is to say harmful to competition per se. Article 82 has no direct counterpart in the US where behaviour which hurts your competitors is generally OK until it hurts consumers. The general philosophy is you can use your economic clout to undercut the other guy, even put him out of business, but woe betide you if you exploit the buying public.

Americans suspect there is a political agenda, that the Commission uses Article 82 to prop up weak companies and protect its domestic industry from foreign competition. It is part of a wider agenda, they say, to promote an industrial policy, a relic of our socialist heritage.
.
.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8903-1048904,00.html

[ze_dscherman]

16. "Microsoft bundling 'none of your business' US politicians tell EU"

US politicians have lashed out at the European Union's decision to seek sanctions against Microsoft, asking regulators in Brussels to reconsider their decision to levy an unprecedented fine of €497m.

In a letter to European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, 10 members of the House International Relations committee said the federal litigation against Microsoft had resolved outstanding antitrust problems and jointly cautioned that it was of the "utmost importance" that the US continue to take the lead in overseeing American companies' business practices.

SNIP

This is not the first time that the US and the Europeans have clashed over antitrust enforcement. Hostilities erupted after the European Union vetoed the proposed GE-Honeywell merger, which US regulators had already approved. President George W Bush publicly criticised that decision, which was widely viewed as a protectionist move designed to help European competitors such as Airbus and Lufthansa at the expense of US firms.

In addition, US officials sometimes view Europeans as unabashed fans of big government. In November 2001, William Kolasky, deputy assistant attorney general at the time, complained in a speech that the "European Union comes from a more statist tradition that places greater confidence in the utility of governmental intervention in markets".

http://www.silicon.com/management/government/0,39024677,39119521,00.htm

So the rights of its consumers are no business of the EU??? This is sooo stupid. If my company sells something to an U.S. customer, it has to comply with U.S. law, hasn't it?

[Voice_of_Europe]

17. 30-40% of Microsofts business is takes place in Europe

This kinda makes it EU's business.

Nowadays every company has to specially adapt to US law if it wants to do business in the US market.

This has to be vis-versa of course.