Agreed. I mentioned this in the OT thread, but the government has no business fining a company because they didn't recommend a competitors product. Windows is Microsoft's product, they should be allowed to develop it however they want.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Prepares For a Huge EU Fine (maximum 10% of last year's revenues)
- Thread starter guit3457
- Start date
That's ridiculous. The new formats were released as an open forma and based around XML rather than the proprietary format that were the old DOC/XLS files. It had nothing to do with breaking compatibility with other software or forcing users to upgrade - Microsoft provided an update for Office 2003 that allowed it to use the format before Office 2007 was even released.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I don'f think you really understand how this works.
Little Green Yoda
Member
Okay, this might be a dumb question but I'll ask anyway. How do companies like MS profit off x numbers of users using their browser? There aren't any embedded ads in the browser itself. Is it just a matter of brand recognition and mindshare? I know different browsers may have different standards and functionality but I'm not sure how a company like MS can leverage something like this into something profitable.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's a long-term game of stomping out the competition before it becomes real competition.
For example, if MS had got away with this then they may well have forced Bing into IE the same way they forced IE into Windows, and then we'd have a world without Google.
Bad logic. Tell that to the people who put horsemeat in beefburgers.
Alx
Member
I'm pretty sure Bing is the default quicksearch in IE, just like Google is the one with Chrome or default browsers on Android (I'm not even sure I can configure Opera Mini to use something else than Google)
It would be a problem if IE refused to access www.google.com, but that's not the case.
Absolutely not.
There is no way an Australian Court would deem this to be a case of liquidated damages. Let's for a moment forget the fact that Australian law has diverged a fair bit in recent years (See ANZ v Andrews), and apply Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co which is the English authority.
There is no evidence that it's a pre-estimation of a loss. Unless of course the Commission were to somehow argue that Microsoft recieved 10% of its yearly revenue from bundling its browser. (Which I highly doubt is the case, but could be true). It doesn't have to be exact of course but it seems so far out of the ballpark that it couldn't be a genuine estimate.
It seems on the basis of the construction of the clause as it's mentioned here that it was made to punish Microsoft for non-compliance. Otherwise the use of fine would be inappropriate. I do however recognise that just because something is called a penalty doesn't exactly make it so.
It's excessive. I doubt anyone could argue that 7bn wasn't excessive. They didn't end up fining that much but the clause must be taken on its construction and the clause allowed that amount to be charged.
I know a settlement is a contract but the remedy for a breach isn't the maximum penalty that can be potentially applied by the Courts but the actual settlement agreement itself. How much would Microsoft be paying if they had complied? That's all they would be entitled to under contract law.
I would definitely argue that it was a penalty.
Karsticles
Member
Ditto. It wouldn't make sense in any other circumstance, either.
You can buy Madden in Europe?
FieryBalrog
Member
Sounds like another EU shakedown for cash. Funny how everyone knows corporations abuse their powers (they do), but governmental abuse -in this case, by a non-democratic beaurocracy- can always be justified with some hand-waving.
About protecting consumers from what, using Internet explorer as a default? That's some horrific shit right there!
As for abuse of dominant position, it's not really clear why bundling a browser ever WAS a significant abuse of power, considering every fucking tablet and phone OS comes bundled with a shit-ton of software including browsers, including from dominant market players like Apple and Google.
Oh and a duopoly in classical economic terms is not a whole lot better than a monopoly.
About protecting consumers from what, using Internet explorer as a default? That's some horrific shit right there!
As for abuse of dominant position, it's not really clear why bundling a browser ever WAS a significant abuse of power, considering every fucking tablet and phone OS comes bundled with a shit-ton of software including browsers, including from dominant market players like Apple and Google.
Oh and a duopoly in classical economic terms is not a whole lot better than a monopoly.
Non-democratic bureaucracy abuse? All the European Union legislation needs to pass through the European Parliament that is indeed a directly elected parliamentary institution.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm
The portion labeled as "Other revenue" comprises only 1% of the total budget of the Union. Fines are included in that section along with other non-specific sources.
EagleBurnn
Banned
lol at Notch being proof for anything besides Minecraft.
No, it's not.
Originally there was ODF. An actual properly designed open standard without properitary shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODF
Because of that Microsoft had to act, otherwise ODF would have been used everywhere, which means file format wouldn't have been Windows exclusive anymore. That's why they created the OOXML mess of a standard. Did you know that it supports properitary stuff like VBA + ActiveX? How can anyone call that an open standard? It will only work on Windows unless you implement everything else on other platforms as well (which a) won't happen or b) takes ages of time).
For all the crap they did just read through this:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper
You even need to implement BUGGY CODE, because the OOXML specification says so for example:
Why? Because Microsoft Office has that bug and they had to keep it for compatibility in their old file format. Instead of fixing it for this file format, they just kept it and anyone crazy enough to implement it will have to do so as well.
Did you also know that there is Office 2000 and Office 2002 as well?
For example where I work, we used Office 2000+2002 and everything worked perfectly. And then more and more DOCX/XLSX files came in from outside. So either convert them all the time or install Office 2003/2007 ANYWHERE and you will get forced to install it everywhere. Microsoft could have easily released plugins for those other 2 versions as well. Why didn't they do that? Because people would have just stayed at the other versions.
Oh wait, no. They could have just implemented ODF and be done with it. But then they would have lost part of their monopoly and who would do that.
FieryBalrog
Member
There was no legislation here, beyond the distant legislation that empowers the agencies in question.
This is of course true for any regulatory agency, which is why regulatory abuse is a very real thing (not just to shakedown companies for money, but more often to protect big influential companies or unions against competitors and market changes- companies don't spend billions on lobbying for nothing). It's very much a real thing in the US. The practical impact voters can have on the bureaucratic machinery of government is insignificant. Whether you voted for Obama or Romney, for instance, the actual machinery of the government has a tremendous impetus of its own, and there would only be some minimal changes from differing top-down directives that trickled down.
But in this case, it's a particular concern because of the sheer metaphorical and literal distance between the citizens of EU nations and the EU parliament and council.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Aargh! That's what I (deservedly) get for oversimplifying things! Thank you.
You're right of course that in simple contract this wouldn't work and for the reasons you gave - not in Australia, or the UK, or many other places.
You're completely wrong though about which way the damages would fall to be calculated. It's not about what revenues MS derives from the browser market at all. This is Microsoft's breach, and the losses to be calculated are the potential loss TO THE EU - the fines that MS would have faced had they not agreed the settlement. And those are set in EU law, which is not at all a bad way of estimating the potential damages.
In any case, whatever it is this isn't a simple contract situation - I'm not sure exactly what the procedure is but it's probably backed by some sort of court order like most other settlements. I'm sure there must be similar competition/settlement cases in Australia - but you're dead right that it wouldn't come off as liquidated damages in simple contract.
That's what I meant. The anti-trust Commissioner acts accordingly to the legislation that was voted in the European Parliament. I though agree with you that these kind of metagovernment structures need themselves to be closely monitored and regulated. The current Commissioner Almunia even went as far as to acknowledge that some of the blame for the continued failure from Microsoft to comply to the previous mutually agreed settlement was also a failure from the Commission itself to oversee its fulfillment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/t...crosoft-over-browser.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Yes. We can also buy cars, HDTVs and smartphones.
My mind is simply blown how many people here can't understand what EU fined MS for and that monopolists don't have same rights as normal companies.
And lol with apple or madden stuff being "monopoly". Apple is insignificant 3-5% of total PC hardware and same with any other hardware.
And lol with apple or madden stuff being "monopoly". Apple is insignificant 3-5% of total PC hardware and same with any other hardware.
Kibbles
Member
I agree. Its no different than on android and iOS where you are forced on Chrome/Safari upon setting up the operating system but you then can download new browsers as you please.
Google is in talks with the Anti Trust Commission to arrange for a settlement deal but I think is about their search engine business. Not sure though.
That is also wrong. They get away with that only because they are minority.
Android is already on straight way to monopolism in phone/tablet market so in near future they will need to change their practices or they will be fined same as MS.
dragonbane
Member
It doesn't matter because Microsoft accepted this and agreed on a settlement. It's their own fault if they break it. They shouldn't have accepted it in the first place then. Nothing to feel bad about...
Haha. Makes sense. I'm completely out of my depths when it comes to EU law so I'll happily concede.
Lay Judges? No precedent? No trusts? Career Judges?
Civil law makes my brain bleed out of my ears every time I try to learn something.
not in the UK
Valkyria
Banned
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's mostly not as hard as it sounds.
Lay judges? Yes, in England in low-level criminal cases mostly. Works like a jury only smaller. Plus, they may be "lay" as in not being lawyers but they got a helluva lot of experience of criminal trials.
No precedent? Depends on the country. Big emphasis on precedent in the UK, less emphasis on precedent (but more emphasis on the logic of a decision, and there are advantages both ways) in the Latin countries at least - no idea how it works in Germany though.
No trusts? Bollocks. Loads of trusts in the UK. On the continent the same thing exists but without the mindbending equity/law complication. A trust turns out to be just a complicated sort of contract. Same result. Has to be, because people's problems are basically the same and need the same sorts of solutions.
Career judges? Yeah, at least in France. So what?
It's just different ways of achieving the same stuff really.
One of my students is now an Australian lawyer, and it seems to be not all that different really (biggest practical differences seem to be in land law rather than, say, contract or tort).
benjipwns
Banned
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
I could see a problem if Windows was blocking other browsers from working with the OS but a fine for not recommending a competitors product is absurd.
Sould MS have to advertise other office suites as well? They seem to have that market pretty locked down too.
Sould MS have to advertise other office suites as well? They seem to have that market pretty locked down too.
You don't get them for free with Windows. Microsoft Office is still a seperate product.
The "problem" is that IE comes with Windows. Office suites doesn't, except for maybe a 60 day trial at best, so that doesn't really apply. And it's not promoting the competitors, but simply giving the user a choice. IE is right there next to all the choices as well.
This is also why Microsoft Security Essentials isn't allowed to be shipped with Windows even though it's completely free and the OS would be better off if they were able to have it preinstalled. It's to create competition and a healthy market. But I agree that it seems a bit silly at times. For example I'm not aware of Apple being forced to do the same, and OSX comes with Safari doesn't it? It all seems to be picking on the big guy simply for being the market leader.
So I'm fine with EU doing this, but it should apply to every OS manufacturer and not just Microsoft.
poor little Microsoft. Why can't the big bad EU just leave them alone while they abuse their market position?
When I install Windows there should be a popup for other OS's.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It's staggering the amount of ignorance on display in this thread and the amount of people leaping to Microsoft's defence as if a great injustice has been done.
I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense.
The very fact that MSFT has not disputed this fine and has apologised is proof enough that the EU is not simply seeking to fill its pockets against an innocent company.
Pure and utter nonsense.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
That's an oversimplification and inaccurate summary of what has happened here.
Microsoft were found guilty of having engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, they were fined and punished, in order to lessen the fine they agreed in a settlement to have the browser choice pop-up in future versions of Windows sold in the EU.
They are being fined now for removing that pop-up, which was a contravention of the previous settlement.
You can't cry foul at them being punished for attempting to breach the agreement, an agreement they made at the time to lessen the fine they would have needed to pay.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
How are they abusing their market position? You could download any browser you want. They aren't stopping you from doing that.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
Oh ok, that sounds more plausible.
Meanwhile Google makes changes so that gmail and calendar are basically useless on non-Android devices.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
It has to be placed into historical context.
At the time of the original case the time it would take to download a browser was about 25 minutes, over a dial-up line that cost for connection on a per minute basis, not flat rate broadband.
So by bundling the browser with the OS they made the need for spending that time and money on downloading another browser a costly and therefore undesirable inconvenience.
They literally shut a competitor out of the market by leveraging their OS monopoly.
Somebody call Valve's counsel, stat.
Fixed for accuracy.
You do realize that Google is currently under investigation by the EU, right?
ymoc
Member
What are you talking about?! Power-abusing-money-hungry EU is obviously hitting successful and honest USA businesses with the goal of bailing out their bancrupt countries. Why do you think every time there is a shortage of cash (for example the EU budget is getting smaller each year) the EU finds a way to milk MS again and again. 2.2b € because people can't open IE to download their browser of choice ?! WHERE DOES ALL THAT MONEY EVEN GO !?
iwannaseetherecipts.gif
And let's not forget Apple and Google! And iOS, and android....and EA ! MADDEN! MAAAAAAADDENNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
Thanks EU : /
did they put some stuff in your water..??
When I meant EU law I meant continental civil law, not UK law. I understand English law just fine as it's just another common law jurisdiction. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm sure it works fine, I'm just not well versed in it and therefore find it odd. After all I'm only a junior associate, not a barrister. Althought it's definitely something I want to aim for.
Yeah I’d also say that one of the biggest differences in Australian and British law is the area of administrative and constitutional law, in which we’re probably closer to America than the UK. I'm a constitutional/admin lawyer but I seriously doubt I'd have a lot of trouble adapting to UK law, but my area might not carry over so well.
Edit: Interestingly we've burrowed a couple of constitutional law tests from the German Constitutional Court at Karlsruhe with an incredibly long and difficult name to remember. Mainly when it comes to the 'reasonably appropriate and adapted' tests for the implementation of treaties and the implied right to political communication.
ymoc
Member
Similar threads
- Locked