"Microsoft was fined a record 899 million euros (USD 1.35 billion) by the European Commission on Wednesday for using high prices to discourage software competition in the latest sanction in their long-running battle. The executive arm of the European Union said the U.S. software group defied a 2004 order from Brussels to provide the information on reasonable terms. Microsoft has now been fined a total of 1.68 billion euros by the EU for abusing its 95 percent dominance of PC operating systems through Windows."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
I know that Microsoft says that it's Open Protocol Announcement has nothing to do with the EU court pending decision (pending at that time anyway). But I bet it has had some influence, and to that end I applaud the EU for keeping the pressure on.....something the US failed to do.
Edited 2008-02-27 19:04 UTC
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
They dont come up with the figure from thin air you know, just the same way a judge comes up with a figure for you to pay something. From what I've seen it's based on a percentage of what you earn or gross.
Microsoft earn alot of money so the fine will be big to you and me, if a smaller company did the same thing it wouldn't be the same figure because they profit less.
Edited 2008-02-27 19:12 UTC
Member since:2007-07-25
Fans: 0
Yeah its almost like RIAA wants you to pay a million and a half per album you pirated.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
do you actually know what the EU does?
Yes, the fine is big, BUT microsoft would not have those kind of sums in the bank had it not denied the competition
The reason no-one wanted the non media player version was it was the same price as the version WITH (in the uk at least)
Member since:2006-03-12
Fans: 2
It has nothing to do with creating a lucrative market for basic apps. It's about allowing software to compete on the platform. If you delete RealPlayer, it's gone. If you delete Windows Media Player, it respawns itself before your eyes, and when you run it, you get an advertisement of your choice from among a handful of Windows Media download services offering files that require Windows Media Player on Windows to keep playing. The de facto installed position of that software allows Microsoft to create dependence before customers are aware of lock-in or alternatives. The EU sees that tactic as abusive. I tend to agree.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
That was easy: a lot of guys working on Samba came from Microsoft and left because Microsoft wanted more compatibility with older software, the developers didn't like it and joined (or started?) Samba. So specs where not needed.
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Member since:2006-02-01
Fans: 0
The difference in the WMP case and in this case, is that in the WMP case, Microsoft was force to offer to version of Windows for the same price and with one version beeing inferior to the other one. While in this case Microsoft is asked to release documentation about Windows API and protocols, for a reasonable price.
Member since:2006-01-06
Fans: 7
How much is Media Player worth? IE? Notepad? Paint? Solitaire? Quite frankly, if you say anything but $0, I'm going to be very surprised, because there are tons of free alternatives on the market that have necessarily reduced the value of Media Player to $0.
According to MS, "hundreds of Microsoft employees and contractors have worked for more than 30,000 hours to create over 12,000 pages of detailed technical documents that are available for license today." The EU claims that the documentation wasn't sufficient, but isn't required to provide independent analysis by anyone outside their payroll. Quite frankly, given the amount of money at stake here, I'd question the EU's objectivity on this issue. I say let ISVs tell us whether the docs are sufficient or not, not some hired flack from the EU.
Member since:2006-09-10
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 13
Member since:2006-01-06
Fans: 7
Because, as I've pointed out on this thread, a Media Player isn't worth more than $0, when there are numerous free alternatives on the market (ie. WinAmp, etc).
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 13
Member since:2006-09-25
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
The DG Competition can ask 5% of the daily turnover for each day of non-compliance. Microsoft had to be compliant within 90 days after the Court of First Instance decided they did need to comply.
What they did is count the number of non-compliant days multiply with the daily fines, and subtract the non-compliance fine from 2006.
Back in 2006 the DG Competition did not fine the full 5% (if I remember well 3%) and warned the remaining money would be fined if Big M would still be incompliant. Apparantly this is what happened today (plus the full 5% daily fines after the 2006 fine).
It should be noted that Microsoft now is being considered compliant (the new terms allowed Samba to buy the documentation), but apparently they didn't get forgiveness for the non-compliant period since the previous fines in 2006.
Member since:2005-12-31
Fans: 0
Easy.
The calculation is made on the period in which Microsoft broke the law and is a percentage variable between 3.5 and 11.4 depending on the gravity of the illecit income made in consequence of the felony.
Funny fact.
If the morons at Microsoft had just paied in first place instead in dragging the discussion for years (hoping the EU will starve on the way) they would have to pay less due to a shorter period of infringement.
Well written Law are such a bitch 
Member since:2006-01-02
Fans: 7
Member since:2006-07-01
Fans: 1
Member since:
2005-06-29
Fans: 1
Member since:2006-05-12
Fans: 0
Promote? I think most of the people actually interested in using an alternative operating system could give a damn about a 1.5 bn promotion.
When you force something down someones throat, they tend to demand it be worth it.
When you do things like improve the product, they vote with their feet.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 13
Member since:2006-01-16
Fans: 1
You're not making sense man. The EU cannot do anything else but fine M.$. Would you be happy if they just didn't do anything? It's not like they can come to M.$ and put the company behind bars for breaking the law. Sheesh get a grip on reality.
The figure btw. is like the cost of matchbox for you really. M.$ earns it back so fast it's hilarious. Multiply by 100 and then we can talk about impact.
Edited 2008-02-27 19:21 UTC
Member since:2006-01-23
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-01-16
Fans: 1
Member since:2006-01-23
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-07
Fans: 5
Actually they do have other options.
During the hearing at the European Court of 1st instance a so-called "think tank" produced a list of options the EC has available according to the EU treaty.
For example the commission could impose a ban on competing for governmental contracts using Microsoft products.
Since this is a huge market (Administration offices, schools, etc) this would be far worse from Micrsoft's point of view than any fine.
Member since:2007-02-22
Fans: 5
Actually, that figure represents about 2% of Microsoft's yearly income.
Member since:2006-07-30
Fans: 2
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33
Indeed. Supersized corps require supersized fines to even get their attention. As you demonstrate, that number, which sounds huge to those of us who file our yearly 1040EZ forms, is really just a very reasonable and life-sized fine relative to the entity being fined. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a certain amount of leniency has been shown.
The good news is that, despite my fears to the contrary, we actually have started seeing some improvements in their behavior as a result of the legal interventions of the last 10 years. But it is hardly time to let up. There is still so far to go.
Member since:2006-07-01
Fans: 1
Member since:2007-10-18
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-07-01
Fans: 1
Member since:2006-08-01
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-01-19
Fans: 0
The EU is definitely NOT against US-based companies.
If you look at the list of companies that get fined, you will find that MOST of them are EU-based.
And about the height of the fine: None of the EU-based companies were stupid enough to go to the stage where they get slapped with daily fines, nor was any of the companies as big as Microsoft. Both factors are rising the fine.
The rules are simple: Don't act in a way that makes the market dysfunctional. If you do, you get fined. The fines are steep enough to make bad behaviour be a slow way towards bankrupcy, so misbehavior does not make economical sense.
Microsoft obviously thought they could do with the EU commission what they did in USA, but alas, they were wrong.
Had the fines been less high, Microsoft would just have continued their behaviour, because the loss by compliance would have been more than the loss by fines.
What happens with the fines?
The fines go into the EU budget, paying for subventions, the administrative costs and GALILEO.
RE[2]: It's sad really
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
The EU bureaucracy is a big myth. The Europian Union is one the most efficient administrations in the EU, compared to national and local administrations. Compared to the work produced, the EU has a reasonably low amount of people employed and burns little money.
Yes, all the translation etc. costs money. Yes, the moves from Strasbourg to Brussel cost money. However, these are part of what the EU stands for. Even with these costs, the EU bureaucracy burns far less money than most member states governments.
Edited 2008-02-27 21:20 UTC
Member since:2005-12-21
Fans: 0
What? Do you know how many people work for the EU? 23,000. Compare that to the 43,000 civil servants working for the city of Paris (inner city only, 2 millions inhabitants).
As for Gallileo (of which the EU is funding only one third), the EU is promoting international competition and the development of high tech companies and research. You can always argue that cooperation would be economicaly more sound, that may be true in the short term but in the long one? We all know where monopoles lead.
Member since:2005-07-17
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-05-29
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-07
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-01-16
Fans: 1
Member since:2007-07-25
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-07
Fans: 0
Well, I am not saying anything about the Economic power of the EU vs the US but note this:
Taking goods and services together, the EU and the USA account for the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. The significant amount of bilateral trade and investment illustrates a high degree of interdependence of the two economies.
This was taken from an EU website. http://www.eurunion.org/profile/facts.htm
clearly a trade dispute is not in either the US or EU's benefits.
Member since:2006-01-16
Fans: 1
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 13
You do of course understand that the US market is minuscule in comparison to the EU, the worlds biggest market ?
If the US decided to go for a trade embargo, they would be doing more than shooting themselves in the foot, they would put the US further back into bankruptcy than it is at this minute.
Member since:2005-11-16
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-07
Fans: 5
Memb