EU fines Microsoft record $1.3 billion

[Shintai]

but mac doesnt make a ton of $ thats why you see everyone shouting at MS, MS is the big fish mac is nemo small and lost lol

Apple is also in strong headwind in the EU. Also alot of smaller companies. The EU mainly fines EU companies, but some people seems to forget it. They also miss all the smaller cases since they dont get the same media attention.

If the EU just wanted to milk MS they would take the 2.23billion$ that they can within the law.

"Talk is cheap, flouting the rules is expensive."

[CPLB]

I think the fines are far too extreme.

The way I see it, this fine originates from rival companies that want access to Microsoft code so they can make their software run better in Windows OS. But Microsoft doesn't want to just give this proprietary information away so they charge money... EU thinks this isn't fair so they slap this huge fine on Microsoft? Not right in my opinion.

[Ugly n Grey]

My bias is free enterprise, if you get someone to willingly give you money for a product no matter how much it is, you should be allowed to do it. If they price themselves too high people will find an alternative and they'll crash. Don't give me this monopoly BS.

And the EU, no matter how big a market are in a constant peeing match with other trade zones, protecting THEIR monopoly, so you socialists can think on that for a while. Don't give me the "good of the people" crap.

The fine is a joke, the North American Free trade zone should immediately launch multiple investigations into EU companies and start fining the snot out of those with "monopolies" in their respective trading classes. Or just for fun.

[Revv23]

Let me assure you one thing that many many IT people seems to get wrong all the time. Nobody is so precious they can not be replaced. MS could be entirely replaced within 3-5years. The sole reason MS is where it is today, is because nobody uses the money and resources to get there. MS makes somewhat inferiour products. Its not like they make the cream of the cream products. Hell, we could even use OSX for a while tho it would not be the greatest thing. But billions of € would be spend to make a new foundation and alternative if pressed for it. And thats would mean bai bai MS.

There is entire goverments and corporations today that runs 100% without MS.

This is my point. if MS stopped selling/supporting products in the EU it would either mean a disasterous economic hit on the EU or a public endorsment of using pirated MS software. Certainly MS can be replaced but it would take an astronomical amount of time and money to do so.

[[XC] leviathan18]

Let me assure you one thing that many many IT people seems to get wrong all the time. Nobody is so precious they can not be replaced. MS could be entirely replaced within 3-5years. The sole reason MS is where it is today, is because nobody uses the money and resources to get there. MS makes somewhat inferiour products. Its not like they make the cream of the cream products. Hell, we could even use OSX for a while tho it would not be the greatest thing. But billions of € would be spend to make a new foundation and alternative if pressed for it. And thats would mean bai bai MS.

There is entire goverments and corporations today that runs 100% without MS.

yes ask that to any IT in a company like nokia that is almost everywhere or cemex or ibm companies with branches in different countries no just europe if they could live without MS in europe imagine the chaos and the money you have to spend even if the company is just in europe is just too much trouble and money to change everything to another OS specially because large corporations have lots of software that are made only for windows

[Shintai]

I think the fines are far too extreme.

The way I see it, this fine originates from rival companies that want access to Microsoft code so they can make their software run better in Windows OS. But Microsoft doesn't want to just give this proprietary information away so they charge money... EU thinks this isn't fair so they slap this huge fine on Microsoft? Not right in my opinion.

I think you missunderstood what it is about.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software - where it is the world's leading supplier - in an effort squeeze into a new market and damage rivals.

The company delayed compliance for three years, the EU said, only making changes in October to the patent licenses for companies that need data to create software that works with Microsoft.

Microsoft had initially set a royalty rate of 3.87 percent 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 percent of their products' revenues.

The EU complained last March that the rates were unfair. Under threat of fines, Microsoft two months later reduced the patent rate to 0.7 percent and the information license to 0.5 percent - 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 10,000 euros ($14,900) and an optional worldwide patent license for a reduced royalty of 0.4 percent.

If you defend MS its like saying Intel should trash all over AMD and kill it off while makign sure nVidia would never be able to make chipsets and GPUs that could rival Intels. Since they would be at a penalty from the start.

[vitaminc]

yay tax the big guys to help the small guys. a perfectly socialist way to handle income redistribution!!

btw, MS making inferior products? What a M$ hator. You think M$ products are inferior only because you have to pay for them, one way or the other.

[Yoxxy]

Let me assure you one thing that many many IT people seems to get wrong all the time. Nobody is so precious they can not be replaced. MS could be entirely replaced within 3-5years. The sole reason MS is where it is today, is because nobody uses the money and resources to get there. MS makes somewhat inferiour products. Its not like they make the cream of the cream products. Hell, we could even use OSX for a while tho it would not be the greatest thing. But billions of € would be spend to make a new foundation and alternative if pressed for it. And thats would mean bai bai MS.

There is entire goverments and corporations today that runs 100% without MS.

This would account to billions if not trillions in lost revenue. I admit you are smart at some computer related but you either have a lack of economic knowledge or your personal hate for Microsoft skews many of your opinions.

I am not a fan of Microsoft but saying that you should cut them out and replace them in 3-5 years would have a far larger consequence on GDP than is worthwhile at this point.

Also this fine can be appealed it will be 2-3 years before MS even pays. At a certain point this will go to the WTO.

Also as far as licensing goes have you ever looked at Europes pride SAP and their crazy licensing schemes?

[Jamesrt2004]

Ouch

wonder what the EU will waste the money on though?

[Shintai]

My bias is free enterprise, if you get someone to willingly give you money for a product no matter how much it is, you should be allowed to do it. If they price themselves too high people will find an alternative and they'll crash. Don't give me this monopoly BS.

And the EU, no matter how big a market are in a constant peeing match with other trade zones, protecting THEIR monopoly, so you socialists can think on that for a while. Don't give me the "good of the people" crap.

The fine is a joke, the North American Free trade zone should immediately launch multiple investigations into EU companies and start fining the snot out of those with "monopolies" in their respective trading classes. Or just for fun.

If you can get over your patriotic garbage, you would quickly find out the EU fines more european companies than it does with the rest of the worlds.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...rust/news.html
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...s_new/news.cfm

[Yoxxy]

Ouch

wonder what the EU will waste the money on though?

Their huge deficits obviously. Although I do like the idea that at some point they are going to force Eurozone members to have a balanced budget. Someone needs to do that in the USA 3-4% of GDP is simply ridiculous for any country.

[Shintai]

This would account to billions if not trillions in lost revenue. I admit you are smart at some computer related but you either have a lack of economic knowledge or your personal hate for Microsoft skews many of your opinions.

I am not a fan of Microsoft but saying that you should cut them out and replace them in 3-5 years would have a far larger consequence on GDP than is worthwhile at this point.

Also this fine can be appealed it will be 2-3 years before MS even pays. At a certain point this will go to the WTO.

Also as far as licensing goes have you ever looked at Europes pride SAP and their crazy licensing schemes?

Maybe you should try and stick to the context and go read the original. Its all about IF MS withdrew from Europe!

[Shintai]

Their huge deficits obviously. Although I do like the idea that at some point they are going to force Eurozone members to have a balanced budget. Someone needs to do that in the USA 3-4% of GDP is simply ridiculous for any country.

LOL!

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ctrpt_0801.pdf

And there is already tight budget rules.

[CPLB]

I think you missunderstood what it is about.



If you defend MS its like saying Intel should trash all over AMD and kill it off while makign sure nVidia would never be able to make chipsets and GPUs that could rival Intels. Since they would be at a penalty from the start.

Hmm... I still think I got the jest of it. Rivals want to program their software better for Windows (and want MS to give them access to code), Microsoft doesn't want to give this info away so they instate a fee, EU thinks fee is too high and fines MS.

You're saying that the large fine also takes into account that MS has been dragging their feet on previous fines and accusations, and that on a world wide scale MS isn't following sanctions that have been placed on them by the EU. But why should they? EU prosecutes MS for these fees so MS lowers the fees in EU... seems right to me. Also, I don't see why Microsoft's delays on previous accusations by the EU should be grounds for such a high fine this time.

The company was also told to give rivals more information about how Windows works, so they can make their own software integrate better with the operating system that runs some 90% of the world's computers.

Microsoft agreed, but imposed a high royalty rate on the information, saying it was charging for the innovation involved.

The Commission decided that the rate - initially set at nearly 3% of the licensee's product revenues - was unjustified.

That wrangle lasted until October 2007, when the company agreed to reduce the royalty rates. This latest fine is intended to punish Microsoft for non-compliance with the EU ruling up to that time.

[Ugly n Grey]

If you can get over your patriotic garbage, you would quickly find out the EU fines more european companies than it does with the rest of the worlds.

Patriotism? Capitalism. learn the word.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for pointing it out for me.

[Slay0r]

Hmm... I still think I got the jest of it. Rivals want to program their software better for Windows (and want MS to give them access to code), Microsoft doesn't want to give this info away so they instate a fee, EU thinks fee is too high and fines MS.

You're saying that the large fine also takes into account that MS has been dragging their feet on previous fines and accusations, and that on a world wide scale MS isn't following sanctions that have been placed on them by the EU. But why should they? EU prosecutes MS for these fees so MS lowers the fees in EU... seems right to me. Also, I don't see why Microsoft's delays on previous accusations by the EU should be grounds for such a high fine this time.

I still can't get why you or the article refer to software makers as rivals. Would you see me as your rival if I was to buy licenses off you to make my mass product be fully compatible with your operating system?! And would you make me wait for months on end and debit me the calls after I payed you a few millions for some cubic metres of thin air?

An US company didn't go by whatever contracts were stipulated with some european companies, and the EU retailated. I think it's as humanly acceptable as. The fine might be huge, yes, but so might be the money and the product appeal loss of the companies involved.

[CPLB]

I still can't get why you or the article refer to software makers as rivals. Would you see me as your rival if I was to buy licenses off you to make my mass product be fully compatible with your operating system?! And would you make me wait for months on end and debit me the calls after I payed you a few millions for some cubic metres of thin air?

An US company didn't go by whatever contracts were stipulated with some european companies, and the EU retailated. I think it's as humanly acceptable as. The fine might be huge, yes, but so might be the money and the product appeal loss of the companies involved.

I think they're considered "rivals" because (from what I've read) most of the companies that are complaining about the fees sell/make products that compete with services that Microsoft includes with Windows. For example, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

I don't really understand what you mean by the second part, but I do think MS was wrong for doing this. The fees were too high and needed to be fixed. Also they needed to take responsibility for the charges placed on them previously by the EU, instead of dragging their feet. But i also think this latest fine was too high.

[kiwi]

Let me assure you one thing that many many IT people seems to get wrong all the time. Nobody is so precious they can not be replaced. MS could be entirely replaced within 3-5years. The sole reason MS is where it is today, is because nobody uses the money and resources to get there. MS makes somewhat inferiour products. Its not like they make the cream of the cream products. Hell, we could even use OSX for a while tho it would not be the greatest thing. But billions of € would be spend to make a new foundation and alternative if pressed for it. And thats would mean bai bai MS.

You are too optimistic Unfortunately real world is different

[Slay0r]

I think they're considered "rivals" because (from what I've read) most of the companies that are complaining about the fees sell/make products that compete with services that Microsoft includes with Windows. For example, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

I don't really understand what you mean by the second part, but I do think MS was wrong for doing this. The fees were too high and needed to be fixed. Also they needed to take responsibility for the charges placed on them previously by the EU, instead of dragging their feet. But i also think this latest fine was too high.

As far as I know, those affected the most were the producers of printers and in general connectivity. (the article also mentions it)

[Piotrsama]

So, what's the EU supposed to do with that money?
They give it to the affected companies or what?

[CPLB]

As far as I know, those affected the most were the producers of printers and in general connectivity. (the article also barely mentions it)

Here is what I read:

A number of Microsoft rivals - Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Nokia and IBM among them - had complained to the European Commission that Microsoft was reluctant to share its software code.
...
The first will look at whether Microsoft unfairly ties its Explorer internet browser to its Windows operating system.

The other will look at the interoperability of Microsoft software with rival products.

The latest inquiries come after complaints from Norwegian company Opera and a pan-European software makers' group, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems.

[v0dka]

That historically low dollar really hurts now doesnt it?

I'm amazed at the blind faith some of you have in companies. I've seen it before in AMD/ Intel discission, losing sight of all that is reasonable and making up arguments as you go. And here we are again. Some of you act like zealous fanatics.

Haha if I were MS i would pull out of europe. then we would see who was bossing around who. I bet that communist leadership would set up a way to pirate thier software "in the name of the public good"

You call EU leadership communist, which I hope you agree, is pretty hilarious. I suppose you just long for that good old cold war feeling of "you against the rest" now, isnt it? (Althoug I doubt you were alive back then.)

MS just violated well known laws (which exist worldwide lets not forget) and got a bloody nose. What's the big deal?

Lastly, I'm about as right wing as you can get in Holland (maybe that says it all lol), but I'm perfectly able to understand the implications of a monopoly, expecially in a free market economy. Free market you say Ugly n Grey? Let it be a free market without price gouging for the benefit of a select group of shareholders. Free market you say? That also means you have to obide the law, or roll with the punches. There's no such thing as pure, unregulated capitalism anywhere in the world.

[Ugly n Grey]

There's no such thing as pure, unregulated capitalism anywhere in the world.

That is true, however the trade laws are basically political tools with, in my opinion, no real "protection of the people" benefit beyond getting politicians re elected.

I don't object to having reigns on the markets, just the way they are applied in instances such as these.

[Revv23]

Like UnG said, in a free market you can't price gouge, if the price is too high you don't buy things. Why don't you own a ferarri? Is ferrari price gougeing with thier extremly expensive cars? Linux is free, yet no one uses it, and people still say MS is a worse product? No one is forced to buy windows, they buy it because it offers enough benifits to justify the higher cost. Maybe one of those benifits is that more software is compatible with windows then linux. Microsoft isn't developing that software, maybe you should be blaming software companies for locking you into windows and not the other way around.

And I don't know what you mean by us vs. them. The USA has problems of it's own, like UnG, I'm not a patriot, Im a capitalist.

That is true, however the trade laws are basically political tools with, in my opinion, no real "protection of the people" benefit beyond getting politicians re elected.

I don't object to having reigns on the markets, just the way they are applied in instances such as these.

QFT.

[saaya]

Not to be the devil's advocate, but that's just in ridiqulous.

and why if i may ask?