Print 54 comment(s) - last by purefat.. on Jul 10 at 8:03 PM

Software giant balks at penalties

The European Union appears set to keep its hard-line stance against Microsoft’s allegedly anticompetitive tactics, and it is insisting on imposing a €899 million ($1.36 billion USD) fine on the company to keep its future actions in line.

Microsoft’s lawyers disagree, however, and entered a variety of arguments last May that the fine is too high, and was entered based upon “manifest errors” in the EU’s process. With copies of the arguments released publicly earlier this week (PDF), its demands to annul the fine are now available for perusal worldwide:

  • The EU “erred” in its decision to subject Microsoft to regular, periodic fines while the company released copies of its interoperability specifications, due to the fact that Microsoft’s pricing for the documentations was not in line with the EU’s definition of “reasonable,” – the EU never explicitly stated what it considered a “reasonable” price to be.
  • Further, licensing rates for information on its proprietary protocols – despite not passing the EU’s benchmark of reasonability – were more than 30 percent lower what industry experts PriceWaterhouseCoopers determined to be a fair price for “comparable technology.” (Ars Technica questioned this finding early last year, noting that in many cases ‘comparable technology’ was open source, and therefore free.)
  • Microsoft should not have been subjected to a “heightened patentability test,” where the innovation of its trade secrets was placed under scrutiny in order for the EU to decide whether or not Microsoft should have charged royalties for the use of its trade secrets.
  • The EU based some its assessment reports on documents obtained that courts later determined to be “unlawful.”
  • Microsoft was denied its “right” to be heard due to the EU’s failing to give Microsoft the opportunity to speak up after the period for which it was fined, preventing the company from “commenting on all relevant aspects of the case.”
  • And, simply, the fines imposed are “excessive and disproportionate,” particularly due to the fact that the EU chose to challenge its licensing practices.

Additionally, Microsoft previously appealed the fine to Europe’s Court of First Instance last May – however little has developed in the appeal since its filing.

The company’s trouble began in 2004 when the EU demanded Microsoft provide competitors the ability to connect to software running under its Windows platform (applications like Exchange and Active Directory). Third-party attempts to connect to Microsoft technologies have, typically, been written by reverse engineering the company’s communications protocols.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Monopolies are always bad
By RandallMoore on 7/9/2008 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 4
yes,... Monopoly does = unfair pricing and "sometimes" poor product quality, but everyone needs to stop and think a minute. What would the IT industry be like if there was 1,000 different main stream OS's?? If anyone reading this is an IT Pro, then you perfectly well understand that microsoft can be really really shafty sometimes but at the end of the day, you realize that if not MS, then it would be someone else doing the samn d a m n thing. Im actually glad that 499 out of 500 systems that i service are MS products because there is enough info available out there to fix any kind of problem. Anyone complaining needs to write thier own OS and bring it to market. Dont get me wrong, im not a MS PR representative. But they arent the devil either lol.

I use the same example about people that do nothing but bash pres. Bush with every single breath they have. How about YOU try and run a chaotic country. huh?

RE: Monopolies are always bad
By bobcpg on 7/9/2008 9:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but could you image how much more money we (IT people) would make if there was 500 different OS's :)

RE: Monopolies are always bad
By mindless1 on 7/10/2008 11:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
You are failing to see what their goal was, interoperability. With that, an open standard, while we would not have 1000 popular OS, we could have a few more tailored to the different needs that certainly exist.

Nobody that complains needs to write their own OS. If you feel your car has a problem do you need to build your own to justify feeling that way? Of course not, it's well known some are better than others and we welcome the competition because there are standards they all have to meet which at least ensures they are fairly suited to the core intended use.

Having a double standard when it comes to OS versus any other product is not reasonable. Complaining is good, it serves to indicate dissatisfaction in areas that can be improved upon. Even if complaining is not seemingly done in a constructive manner it would then be pointless to fixate on that as if we would have some nirvana as a result. Key is staying focused on actual details that can continue to improve the PC OS we use, accepting it is not perfect just as we had in the past so that no matter what we end up using 10 years from now, it is better and better over time.

MS certainly has the opportunity to do that and a decided advantage. This fine is trival to them, they'll just raise the price of windows next time if the fines add up enough but as always they will have to be mindful of the fact that no matter how much some like windows, others don't place value on the same things and in the end an OS that stays high in cost relative to the total price of a low end system is getting harder and harder to sell.

RE: Monopolies are always bad
By RandallMoore on 7/10/2008 6:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that the linux world of open source has its applications, but by your comments i can assume that you must have not worked as a tech for clients ranging from home users to medium sized businesses (i can be wrong). The reason MS prevails as a "standard" is because it is the most well known. As i said before, 499 out of 500 home users have MS products. And as you must be aware, whatever the masses of home users have, the businesses will also follow with the same due to less training and more productivity. Imagine this for a minute. Lets say 94% of the average joe, working class citizen uses linux at home, and 94% of businesses use MS or even MAC based systems. That would be complete and total disaster for any administrators and technicians. Its hard enough as it is with 99% percent of the people using the same thing at work and at home. Sure linux has significant market share, and can be useful for very specific situations, but i never see it becoming mainstream.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki