backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by Stephen!.. on May 30 at 7:39 AM


  (Source: seppo.net)
The 2008 EU antitrust fine was issued for failing to comply with a previous order in 2004

Microsoft appealed an 899 million euro, or $1.3 billion USD, antitrust fine in an EU court on Tuesday. 

Microsoft, an American electronics, computing and software corporation, was initially issued a fine of 497 million euro by the European Commission in 2004 for abusing its dominant position to hinder competitors. But in 2008, the European Commission issued another fine for failing to comply with the previous order in 2004, which asked Microsoft to allow other products to work with computers running the company's software. 

But Microsoft called the EU's 2008 antitrust fine "excessive and undeserved," since regulators were asking for almost double the previous fine. The 2008 antitrust fine totaled 899 million euro, or $1.3 billion USD.

"This case would not have arisen if the Commission had been as explicit with respect to rates which it wanted Microsoft to charge as it had been with all other terms of licensing proposed by Microsoft," said Jean Francois Bellis, Microsoft's lawyer.

Despite Microsoft's stance, EU regulators claimed that Microsoft showed that it was able to determine measures needed to comply with the 2004 order within a short period of time after a 2007 court ruling. 

In 2009, Microsoft decided to reach a settlement with EU regulators by agreeing to let users chose their own browser when using its Windows OS.

Now, Microsoft has filed an appeal against the EU regulators' antitrust fine. Analysts believe the General Court's verdict, which is usually given between six months and a year after a hearing, could either give the European Commission discretion in its enforcement, or change how the court handles the Commission's position on high fines. Ramon Garcia Gallardo, a partner at SJ Berwin, noted, "fine reductions in cartel fines have been relatively small."

The Computing Technology Industry Association and the Association for Competitive Technology favored Microsoft's position in the case while Oracle Corp., Red Hat Inc. and IBM supported the European Commission. 

"This is a case about a gambler who doubled up on a losing bet, lost again, and now wants his money back," said Nicholas Khan, a lawyer for the European Commission.



Comments     Threshold


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

By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2011 8:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft should just be like "ok, fuck it". And release European versions of Windows with NO browser. See how the unwashed masses would like true "choice" in their browser, go back to the "good old" days of having to BUY one if you didn't like Internet Explorer.

Instead the EU wants to force Microsoft to be a free browser distribution hub via Windows for every browser under the sun. It's absurd and nobody with an I/Q over 40 could possibly support this shit.


By Alexvrb on 5/24/2011 11:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: They tried that, and the European Commission was NOT cool with it. At all. So they had no choice, really.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10263101-56.html...

Read the last paragraph, in particular. If they had gone ahead with the Windows 7 "E" browser-free version, the EU would have just forced them into a ballot or similar option anyway. Plus there were apparentely concerns for upgraders. Although, I think that if you can upgrade Windows, you can slap a browser on a USB stick.

Here's another link where ECIS is quoted as saying that the browserless version did "not go far enough" as well.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/06/12/...

I think the whole thing is idiotic. Firefox and Chrome are doing quite well on their own, even in the US where we don't have a browser poll at all. If you don't like IE it is still perfectly good for downloading an alternative browser. MS makes no attempt to stop you from downloading and installing Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox, et al. Plus IE is just a browser, and a free one at that. I mean a browser is a basic feature at this point.

If the EU really walked the walk, they'd be demanding a browser poll in OS X and Chrome OS - and they wouldn't want to listen to any silly "but the browser IS the OS" excuse from Google, either! :P


By Fireshade on 5/25/2011 4:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment is based on how things are now .

Back then, with the first fine, Microsoft had a different argument on forcing their browser on the user: IE was supposedly an integral part of the OS and could not be separated from the OS (which was proven to be untrue quickly enough).

Also, many people here forget that the fine was not entirely about browser choice. It was more about Microsoft abusing its monopoly. Having a monopoly is fine, but abusing it is not. Seemingly IBM, Red Hat and others were victimized by Microsoft's abuse.

Microsoft knew the (EU) rules and as that lawyer put it, they gambled and lost. It's as simple as that.
Please people, stick with the facts and do not let your emotions rule your comments.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 10:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
You can run MacOS, Linux, or ChromeOS. There is no "monopoly". And how are they "abusing" anyone by including a free browser anyway?


By Alexvrb on 5/25/2011 9:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
No crap, Sherlock. I wasn't replying to the DT article. I was replying to someone who said they should sell a browserless version - which, ONCE AGAIN, they already tried that, and the EC was not satisfied. So they had no choice but to basically distribute competing browsers in their own software. I think that's idiotic, and I think the EC should really walk the walk and put the same rules on Apple and Google.

[sarcasm] After all, Apple has an "MP3 player monopoly*" and Google has a "search engine monopoly*" so clearly they're abusing their monopolies in other areas to push things like iTunes and Gmail! [/sarcasm]

* Monopoly being defined in EU terms of "has plenty of competition but they have a big chunk of the market so clearly they must be a monopoly somehow".


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki