EC fines Microsoft for EUR 561 million
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
E-mail Print r 4   74 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kph
Thread beginning with comment 554526
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with UEFI secure boot. In fact, it does have its advantages, and the government has absolutely no business telling MS (or anyone else) that they can't implement it."



Maybe you are deliberately missing the point? Besides the government never said any such thing anyway. The fundamental problem is that monopolists can win by manipulating markets rather than by competing with merit. If microsoft were allowed to use it's market power to coerce manufacturers to lock competing software off the hardware, that would pose a significant problem to the free market.


Keep in mind that anti-trust came about because of a long string of competitive abuses & monopolization within the free market. Anti-trust was necessary to break down the barriers that corporations were deliberately placing to block competition.

If you want to repeal antitrust, that's fine if that's your opinion but we kind of already know where that gets us. Can you propose a new mechanism by which we could avoid a few monopolists & oligopolists controlling all our markets, or do you think that is an acceptable outcome?



"What IS wrong is the government telling consumers that they are legally not allowed to unlock their own devices if they choose to."

Of course I have to agree, but what logic are you using to connect DMCA with anti-trust law?

Edited 2013-03-07 20:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WorknMan on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If you want to repeal antitrust, that's fine if that's your opinion but we kind of already know where that gets us. Can you propose a new mechanism by which we could avoid a few monopolists & oligopolists controlling all our markets, or do you think that is an acceptable outcome?


Well, I'm not willing to comment on ALL markets. For example, if some large corporation started hording the country's water supply and charged through the nose for it, that would be a problem, since people need water to survive.

But in the narrower context of our discussion in regard to locked bootloaders on x86 systems... do I think that would be 'acceptable'? In my opinion, no; it would suck balls ;) Do I think it should be illegal? No. In general, I don't think ANYTHING in regard to software licensing agreements should be legally binding, that can't technically be enforced. So if a vendor wants to release a product with a stipulation that you can only use it every other Thursday, and puts DRM into their product to try and enforce it, more power to them.

But as I said before, I think consumers should be able to work around these artificially-place limitations if they are able. And if they're not, what they SHOULD be doing is boycotting the products and giving these vendors the middle finger, instead of crying to the government. There is a reason why I only buy Nexus phones these days; those phones are unlockable out of the box. And if they weren't? Fuck 'em ;) I don't need a smartphone that badly. In general, I just want the government to stay the HELL out of these affairs.

Of course I have to agree, but what logic are you using to connect DMCA with anti-trust law?


The DMCA is a PERFECT illustration of how anything the government does usually has unintended consequences, even if they originally meant well. And you see the same thing with patents. In the beginning, some elected official must've thought that was a good idea. And now look where we are?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:44 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"In my opinion, no; it would suck balls ;) Do I think it should be illegal? No."

Well, haha I guess we have a difference of opinion since I'm glad to have antitrust to prevent things from getting that bad. Anyways it wouldn't really be directly illegal per-say, it's just the antitrust *coercion* which is illegal.


"The DMCA is a PERFECT illustration of how anything the government does usually has unintended consequences, even if they originally meant well."

The DMCA was crafted by corporate interests, it was never conceived for the public benefit. If it were up to me I'd kick all corporate lobbyists out of the lawmaking process.

Edited 2013-03-07 22:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >