Support NeoGAF

[Tieno]

EU fines Microsoft record $1.3 billion
World's largest software supplier fined for charging rivals too much to make compatible computer programs.


Microsoft was fined a record $1.3 billion by the European Union for anti-trust violations related to software information.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union fined Microsoft Corp. a record $1.3 billion on Wednesday for charging rivals too much for software information.

EU regulators said the company charged "unreasonable prices" until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system.

Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) immediately said that these fines were about past issues that have been resolved and the company was now working under new principles to make its products more open.

The fine is the largest ever for a single company and the first time the EU has penalized a business for failing to obey an antitrust order.

The penalty far outweighs a a March 2004 decision that fined Microsoft $613 million and ordered it to share communications information with rivals within 120 days, taking an appeal to an EU court that it lost last September.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software - where it is the world's leading supplier - to squeeze into a new market and damage rivals that make programs for workgroup servers that help office computers connect to each other and to printers and faxes.

The company delayed complying with the EU order for three years, the EU said, only making changes on Oct. 22 to the patent licenses it charges companies that need data to help them make software that works with Microsoft.

Microsoft had initially set a royalty rate of 3.87% of a licensee's product revenues for patents and demanded that companies looking for communication information - which it said was highly secret - pay 2.98% of their products' revenues.

The EU complained last March that these rates were unfair. Under threat of fines, Microsoft two months later reduced the patent rate to 0.7% and the information license to 0.5% - but only in Europe, leaving the worldwide rates unchanged.

The EU's Court of First Instance ruling that upheld regulators' views changed the company's mind again in October when it offered a new license for interoperability information for a flat fee of $14,000 and an optional worldwide patent license for a reduced royalty of 0.4%.

 

[grandjedi6]

Today hasn't been a good day for posting

EDIT: For myself apparently

 

[rezuth]

I hate idiots who have animated avatars.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I hate idiots who have animated avatars.

So do I

 

[radioheadrule83]

Me too!

 

[E-phonk]

I hate idiots who have animated avatars.

I hate idiots who have avatars with nintendo characters.

 

[Souldriver]

So what exactly is wrong with this thread that it gets derailed after one reply? Has the story been posted already?

 

[grandjedi6]

So what exactly is wrong with this thread that it gets derailed after one reply? Has the story been posted already?

Thread title -- Pass
Thread Contents --- Pass
Thread poster --- Pass
Thread Location -- Parse Error

 

[Borys]

I fucking loathe idiots who liked The Deer Hunter.

 

[Tieno]

Thread title -- Pass
Thread Contents --- Pass
Thread poster --- Pass
Thread Location -- Parse Error

Huh?

 

[Loudninja]

Thread title -- Pass
Thread Contents --- Pass
Thread poster --- Pass
Thread Location -- Parse Error

What?

 

[grandjedi6]

I don't even understand what I posted. Time to go back to bed me thinks

 

[Souldriver]

Thread title -- Pass
Thread Contents --- Pass
Thread poster --- Pass
Thread Location -- Parse Error

Clearly it should be in the Online Forum.....

 

[WrikaWrek]

Lol at E.U going out to get MS.

Give it a break.

 

[Majmun]

Ouch. That's a lot of money. Even for MS.

 

[speedpop]

Lol at E.U going out to get MS.

Give it a break.

Shed a tear for your poor corporation once more.

 

[Gattsu25]

Not much of a surprise after

Microsoft should have followed the laws

 

[Herpes Reasons]

well, you can forget about free live subscription in the spring update.

 

[JimiNutz]

Europe hates xbox. Sonyland FTW.

 

[Draft]

Europe hates xbox. Sonyland FTW.

Can you imagine? In the judge's chambers, old Euro dude sitting there, playing Gran Turismo or Singstar or whatever, just all "man fuck these Xbots I'm gonna give it to them good."

 

[JayDubya]

So, since it's their OS, people that want to use it or want to make stuff for it, will pay them. People that don't want to can use another OS, or make stuff for another OS. What's the problem again? What's the $1.3 BILLION problem? Ugh.

 

[Phobophile]

So, since it's their OS, people that want to use it or want to make stuff for it, will pay them. People that don't want to can use another OS, or make stuff for another OS. What's the problem again? What's the $1.3 BILLION problem? Ugh.

They're a monopoly?

 

[Zaptruder]

Thread title -- Pass
Thread Contents --- Pass
Thread poster --- Pass
Thread Location -- Parse Error

Reply post -- user error

 

[Gattsu25]

They're a monopoly?

He's going to say something about there being no harm in monopolies, microsoft not being a monopoly, or something about a free market

 

[JayDubya]

They're a monopoly?

Windows is the only OS out there? Really?

 

[Zaptruder]

So, since it's their OS, people that want to use it or want to make stuff for it, will pay them. People that don't want to can use another OS, or make stuff for another OS. What's the problem again? What's the $1.3 BILLION problem? Ugh.

1.3 billion dollar problem is that they're using their position as monopoly to stifle and strategically lock out competitions and others from innovating.

Not good for the market, not good for the consumers. And the law has made it not good for Microsoft.

In this case; ordered as part of anti-trust suit, then failed to adhere to the provisions of the judgement.

So... JD are you suggesting it's ok for a person on parole to violate the conditions of their parole?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Looks like the EU needs some money to help pay for UHC.

 

[Zaptruder]

Windows is the only OS out there? Really?

It doesn't need to be a literal monopoly, to be an effective monopoly. Cmon JD. You're better than this.

Spoiler

not really.

 

[Gattsu25]

"He's going to say something about [not being a monopoly]"

Windows is the only OS out there? Really?

Right on cue

 

[Mad Max]

What's the $1.3 BILLION problem? Ugh.

laws

 

[JayDubya]

It doesn't need to be a literal monopoly

So it's a figurative monopoly, then?

Well, great, it can continue being mislabeled in the delusional rantings of fans / users of the distinguished competition. Of course, we're talking about law, which shouldn't be based on non-substantive things.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

It doesn't need to be a literal monopoly, to be an effective monopoly. Cmon JD. You're better than this.

Spoiler

not really.

Good point. I don't know anyone who uses a Mac. Hell Apple forces you to buy their hardware to run their software. Good thing they're not a Monopoly like Microsoft.

 

[AstroLad]

Regardless of what you think of this or previous rulings, it's pretty clear that the EU won't be happy until MS is completely out of Europe. :lol

 

[iapetus]

Of course, we're talking about law, which shouldn't be based on non-substantive things.

And in legal decisions on both sides of the Atlantic, Microsoft has been found to wield (and abuse) monopoly power. End of story. If you want to discuss why you think the legal setup that allows this is a bad thing, why not start a single other thread for it rather than constantly shitting up existing threads with your this-is-broken-because-it's-not-the-Libertarian-way schtick?

 

[i hate bees]

I know this is probably a dumb question but where does that money actually go?

 

[Phobophile]

Windows is the only OS out there? Really?

I didn't realize that in order to be a monopoly, you needed to have 100% of the market share. Hmm.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Can you imagine? In the judge's chambers, old Euro dude sitting there, playing Gran Turismo or Singstar or whatever, just all "man fuck these Xbots I'm gonna give it to them good."

:lol

 

[Phobophile]

I know this is probably a dumb question but where does that money actually go?

Good question. I don't even know where it goes in the US.

 

[Zaptruder]

I know this is probably a dumb question but where does that money actually go?

Not Jaydubya.

 

[camineet]

I'm rooting for Microsoft.

European Union ? booooooooo hisssssssss

 

[JayDubya]

Wait... what?

You want me to start one thread where I respond to every news article thread people post, rather than posting in the thread itself?

* * *

Also, how is that "End of Story?" Governments and political movements do retarded things all the time, not the least of which is manipulating language:

In the AA thread we see people talking about equality policies as "formal equality" because it's not as good a version they favor (which is, ironically, inequitable).

In the news you hear people using the label of economic recession when the standards for such have not been met.

And yes, along those lines, calling Microsoft a monopoly is not objectively true unless you redefine the word.

Saying, "oh, well it's not literally a monopoly, but it's a monopoly" is like saying that I am not literally a cat, but I nevertheless am. Words have meanings.

* * *

Also, while my memory of (and indeed, the events themselves) the fed's attack on Microsoft during the Clinton era are kind of fuzzy, I don't seem to recall the label of monopoly being used by anyone other than political talking heads and prosecutors, and I also believe the case was settled without any sort of ruling, and that the terms of that settlement are now no longer in effect in 2008.

I do recall that the case in question dealt predominantly with people being grumpypants about Microsoft Internet Explorer being bundled to Microsoft Windows. Which is still as idiotic a notion as it was then. Opera and Firefox and others exist and many people are happy with them. Hell, at the time, AOL was huge and it had its own browser. There's no sin in Microsoft giving a browser that is available for free anyway along with the purchase of one of their products.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Can you imagine? In the judge's chambers, old Euro dude sitting there, playing Gran Turismo or Singstar or whatever, just all "man fuck these Xbots I'm gonna give it to them good."

:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

Wait... what?

You want me to start one thread where I respond to every news article thread people post, rather than posting in the thread itself?

* * *

Also, how is that "End of Story?" Governments and political movements do retarded things all the time, not the least of which is manipulating language:

In the AA thread we see people talking about equality policies as "formal equality" because it's not as good a version they favor (which is, ironically, inequitable).

In the news you hear people using the label of economic recession when the standards for such have not been met.

And yes, along those lines, calling Microsoft a monopoly is not objectively true unless you redefine the word.

Saying, "oh, well it's not literally a monopoly, but it's a monopoly" is like saying that I am not literally a cat, but I nevertheless am. Words have meanings.

Words have multiple meanings. And they're to be interpreted, on the context of the sentence or situation.

 

[Walshicus]

So, since it's their OS, people that want to use it or want to make stuff for it, will pay them. People that don't want to can use another OS, or make stuff for another OS. What's the problem again? What's the $1.3 BILLION problem? Ugh.

You know 99% of the time I find myself disagreeing with you on this kind of thing, but this is the exception.

I don't think regulation of markets is bad, I don't think all monopolies are natural, and I do kind of agree that an initial moderate fine against Microsoft was justified. But now it's just turned into a farce. There are clearly some in the CC who see Microsoft as an alternative source of revenue.

We live in a world where corporations and consumers aren't exactly starved for choice when it comes to operating systems, and it's not like you can't do 99.9% of what you'd need to do on any of the available options.

The CC should be using generic legislation to enact their decisions that can be applied to ALL corporations, not passing flimsily justified fines.

 

[lastendconductor]

Windows is the only OS out there? Really?

They have more than enough market share to abuse their position as they please(and they do). Allowing them to freely manipulate the software business from the key position of the OS ownership is just plain wrong and holds back progress and fair competition. I'm glad steps are being taken.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

There's no sin in Microsoft giving a browser that is available for free anyway along with the purchase of one of their products.

The fear is that they'll then claim the right to start polluting the established open standards with proprietary "extensions", and the web moves from the free development model that made it a success to a "let's all pay for Front Page and IIS!" model. It's good to nip things like that in the bud.

 

[Atrus]

Wait... what?

You want me to start one thread where I respond to every news article thread people post, rather than posting in the thread itself?

* * *

Also, how is that "End of Story?" Governments and political movements do retarded things all the time, not the least of which is manipulating language:

In the AA thread we see people talking about equality policies as "formal equality" because it's not as good a version they favor (which is, ironically, inequitable).

In the news you hear people using the label of economic recession when the standards for such have not been met.

And yes, along those lines, calling Microsoft a monopoly is not objectively true unless you redefine the word.

Saying, "oh, well it's not literally a monopoly, but it's a monopoly" is like saying that I am not literally a cat, but I nevertheless am. Words have meanings.

The consequences for virtual monopolies are the same as that of actual monopolies. Even Standard Oil wasn't the only game in town, it just had control of over 90% of production.

With Microsoft controlling Windows 'using another OS' is a very poorly thought out suggestion given that company's cannot simply change their Operating System. In the business world it can cost a significant amount to make hardware changes and software changes, and unlike this child-like mentality you seem to expect of the actual business world, ERP and MIS software contracts and dependency on vendor system requirements force business decision models.

Suppliers for Walmart for instance are forced to use the JIT systems of Walmart due to it's purchasing power as a customer, as per Porters five forces and the results from these types of deals is to raise barriers to entry and force out competition.

 

[X26]

MS does have a monopoly in the OS market, arguing otherwise is stupid

 

[iapetus]

Wait... what?

You want me to start one thread where I respond to every news article thread people post, rather than posting in the thread itself?

No, I want you to have one thread where you promote Libertarian ideals as the one true way rather than doing so in an increasing number of threads where it only serves to derail discussion. We do not live in a world based on the principles you would like, but that's no excuse for pushing them in every thread that touches on economic and legal issues. If someone did the equivalent in the gaming forum they'd have been banned for it by now.

Also, while my memory of (and indeed, the events themselves) the fed's attack on Microsoft during the Clinton era are kind of fuzzy, I don't seem to recall the label of monopoly being used by anyone other than political talking heads and prosecutors, and I also believe the case was settled without any sort of ruling, and that the terms of that settlement are now no longer in effect in 2008.

The findings of fact in the case (from the judge, not from any prosecutor) stated:

III. MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

The findings of fact then go on to clarify these details. The word 'monopoly' is used 29 times.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED!

Now... will the 1.3 billion be splitted amongst people who were charged too much, or the government is gonna keep it for themself?