Microsoft's Price Fixing Penalty, 9M Euros 237
freakxx writes "Microsoft has been slapped with a fine of 9 million Euros by German regulators over illegally fixing the price of its Office-suite in an anti-competitive manner during a retail-promotion fair. Microsoft has accepted the fine and decided not to take this issue to any higher level."
Punishment (Score:3, Insightful)
"Anti-competitive" (Score:5, Insightful)
Measly 9 million Euros (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea what taxes are like in Europe, but I'd have to imagine that that's probably significantly less than the amount of sales tax collected on the sale of those licenses. At that point, it's just another minor cost of doing business. No wonder MS didn't feel a need to appeal.
Re:That's Surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.
But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not. And vice versa. And a customer is likewise free to buy the product or not. Unless the company was coerced, or the retailer was coerced, or the customer was coerced, what is the problem here? Whose rights are being violated?
9m euros = cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't mean guilt... but they might be guilty anyway, so meh.
Re:That's Surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. $9 million is not only pocket change to to Microsoft, it's very likely that $9 million < the legal bills to fight it.
They could pay the lawyers > $9 million to fight it, or they can just pay the fine.
Either way, the outcome is the same.
Sometimes you just take the practical way out.
Re:That's Surprising... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole
I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses with monopolistic business practices.
This sentence has no content. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, so long as the business is good and the company is not coercing you in any way, nor using government force to their benefit. If the latter, then the government - the provider of the force - would be to blame.
For example Sun's JVM versus Microsoft's JVM, which was a broken implementation designed solely to disrupt Sun and leveraged through Microsoft Windows autoupdate, something Sun could simply not compete with.
So clearly the solution is to spread the word about the incompetence of Microsoft, and persuade people to rationally decide to move away from Microsoft products. Clearly the solution is not to remove all responsibility from consumer actions, and leave consumer safety up to the whims of bureaucrats and their highest-paid lobbyists. No?
Re:small change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I am wondering how they are doing price fixing. If they have a suggested retail price on the box that does not fall under price fixing. Stores are not obligated to sell at those prices but historically stores are given some kind of preferential treatement (e.g. becoming an authorized dealer) for selling at the suggested price. The other upside is that Store A doesn't price gouge itself to be better priced then Store B. That's not price fixing. So going by
Microsoft has influenced the resale price of the software package--Office Home & Student 2007--in an anticompetitive manner
this must not lead to a form of coordination where the supplier actively tries to coordinate the pricing activities of the retailer and thus retailer and supplier agree on future actions of the retailer. I
Dude is making wind to get some brownie points (works great on /.). In all honesty setting a suggested retail price != price fixing. Again, if anyone here believes that they may want to sue every company that produces a product with a price attacked to the packaging from the manufacturer.
BTW i highlighted the "anticompetitive manner" it doesnt' state against what. Anti-competitive against Open Office? I doubt that. Anticompetitive against other MS Office retailers? Why would corporate do that? They don't care what the retailers sell it at as long as they get their money for each box sold (which they set the price). It's popular and easy to slam MS because it's been done before. The number 1 company in a given market is always viewed as the evil of the world. Since they have tons of money it's "OK" to sue.
On a side note I find fault with statements like this
Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,
So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued? Even if I didn't do anything wrong I am supposed to be punished because everyone loves my product? The American dream (or any other countries dream) being torn down one lawsuit at a time. I feel that Russia will sue because getting 9 mil euros is an easy way to increase a countries income.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
A law that forbids price fixing leads to lower prices for the consumer as it allows different vendors of a product to compete against each other. However, this also means that the producer looses some of its control over his products. :)
Most European countries consider this a small price to pay to get the lower prices. Especially if the profits of overpricing go abroad anyway.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses
Yeah... how did that turn out?
Suggested Retail Price (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure my other comment will be seen as /. seems to have issues displaying all comments (and just generally browsing comments) in IE8, even with compatibility mode (anyone know how to fix this?)
Anyway, "suggested retail price" (SRP). It's always been around, and is what is practiced in America. How is it any different in Germany? A store will mostl likely sell a product based on it's suggested retail price for obvious reasons. But if a store is able to procure a bulk quantity, they are free to price the individual copies less than the SRP. That wouldn't be "coercing" the store at all, they were free to choose how money to invest in the product for their store shelves. So, I need help understanding this inane concept. Thanks!
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers.
Doesn't that imply that consumers have a right to any product for which they would be considered to be harmed were they not able to have access to it? With every other right - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness - for someone to be "harmed" would mean that another entity was preventing them access to their life, to their property, to their choice of actions in their attempt at happiness. Doesn't this implication of a "right" to a product thereby violate the pre-existing rights of individuals to do with their property - the product they make - as they please? This all seems like common sense to me.
Re:Issue fines in percents instead? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fining them $6B would mean they'd appeal it and it'd ending up being an expensive legal mess. You want to fine enough that it destroys the extra profit made, but not enough that it's worth them rolling out the lawyers.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's illegal.
I'm not arguing whether or not it's illegal - that's a matter of fact. I'm arguing whether it should be illegal.
To do otherwise is price fixing - it destroys competition in the marketplace by forcing everyone to sell at the same (inflated) price.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that competition will be destroyed, but then say that everyone will have to sell at a higher price. What prevents a competitor from selling a similar product at a lower price? And how do you justify the violation of rights that comes with such regulations against setting the terms of one's contracts?
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
But refusing means they can't sell the product at all.
Exactly. The person or company who made the product owns it until they sell it. That is called private property, and is a right required for a person to make rational decisions to benefit his life and his values.
And if the vendor uses the same "contract" with all the retailers, that means the vendor is now setting the prices, so there is no longer competition between retailers.
Of course there is still competition. Some stores are more convenient than others, and stores would compete to be as convenient to the customer as possible. At the same time, other vendors make other products that are sold in other stores. It's ridiculous how the so-called "pro-competition" camp is opposed to a single vendor's product being sold at the same price in all stores, but is in favor of all competing vendors' products being sold at the same prices in all stores - anything else is considered anti-competitive. You're in favor of a contrived competition, which violates the rights of people to set the terms of their contracts and the price of their property, and in the long run will mean products staying at higher prices than they would have otherwise.
Re:small change... (Score:4, Insightful)
>> Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,
>
> So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?
You create a one-hit-wonder, then perhaps no. But you dominate a market quite a while, regardless of how superior your product is, then yes, you should be subject to scrutiny. Not outright sued ofcourse, the gp never said that.
There is a good goddamn reason we have antitrust laws. It's just that now that the companies have gone so global that the countries into which they roll in the profits too seldom tend to go after them.
Cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
If parking tickets where 2cents I could park where ever I'd like. I think the same holds for Microsoft in this case.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book
It is not a matter of "economic theory" but of individual rights. For it to be any other case would mean that the ends justify the means. No ethical system is possible if you are to be judged on the results of your actions rather than the actions themselves (given your knowledge at the time of the actions). It is not possible to answer the question, "What should I do in this situation?" if you must account for unknowable future events and unforeseen consequences.
In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways
There is nothing inherently wrong with monopolies, just as there is nothing inherently good about competition. So long as people are free to decide whether to buy something or not, the seller is responsible for their actions. Only when people are able to lobby the government to pass laws in their favor, and the government willingly enforces those laws, do rights actually get violated.
It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things.
You will have to provide more specific examples where a company apart from government legislation to their benefit was able to violate the rights of individuals. This would be quite an astonishing example, as it would mean the company openly broke the law and nothing was done about it. If you mean something else by "bad things", let me know.
Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.
I have read up on all of these, and found no examples violates individual rights without government intervention (either to stop those rights violations, or to enforce them). What you are doing is trading the illusion of lower prices now for the reality of higher prices (as opposed to artificially inflated prices) later - as a utilitarian you should be able to appreciate that, though you would do better to get more fundamental and understand individual rights.
Re:That's Surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:2, Insightful)
Any heroin addict? I bet there are lots that if you showed them two doors, one with $1,000 cash behind it and one with a little bit of heroin behind it, they would take the money and go talk to their everyday dealer.
I don't think that even severe addiction is going to remove the tendency to price shop.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.
Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract - so long as it doesn't violate individual rights - and if the other person agrees to those requirements, they are contractually obligated to abide by them. Where is the problem?
Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it.
If that is in the terms of the contract, then you would be right. If not, then you wouldn't be.
Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on?
I would be an idiot to sign such a contract, but if I did, then yes, they would and should be able to. Again, I wouldn't sign such a contract. I want the car to be my property, so I don't allow them any situations where they can control it after I have given then $X of my money.
Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.
But the product is not sold at that point. It is not until they sign the contract that the product is sold. This is essentially a merger between manufacturer and retailer. If they want to merge, and no rights are violated by such a merger - obviously true - then they should be free to do so.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.
This is all the more reason for more responsibility in the hands of the consumer. Through the education you provide, I as a consumer am better able to decide what companies to deal with, and I will not deal with a company if they are simply trying to grab market share. If they're selling at a loss, I can't count on them remaining viable in the future - no tech support 5 years down the road, no updates, etc. Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer. You would have responsibility handed over to the government, leading me - the consumer - to make worse decisions over time, and to expect the government to help me out whenever I made bad decisions from lack of education.
The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.
That is fine so long as it does not influence the government to write legislation violating individual rights... yet this is precisely why the study of oligopolies is so "hot".
Re:small change... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if I didn't do anything wrong I am supposed to be punished because everyone loves my product?
Do you seriously know anyone who "loves" Windows? I hear people complaining about how they want to throw their computer across the room or how they are "rubbish with computers", but not many who say "wow, I love how intuitive this Control Panel/window manager is!".
Perhaps you don't quite understand what a "monopoly" is, or why it is bad for the consumer. It's like saying that people in a communist regime where everyone is given daily bread and water rations must really love bread and water if that's the only thing they ever eat. Or imagine that each brand of car could only run when kept supplied with the manufacturer's own brand of fuel and oil - whoever had the best fueling infrastructure would win. Microsoft currently has the best "infrastructure" simply because they got in there first, so many business applications and games are heavily reliant on Windows rather than the more open platforms that have become available as the world of personal computing has matured. As more software companies start to make their software available on different OSes or move applications into the browser etc, we'll see what people really "love".
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:small change... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously.
There, fixed that for you.
Go back and learn some PC history. It was the IBM monopoly that gave MS its' early edge, and MS did use illegal means to leverage that leg up into a OS and office suite monopoly.
Right, because it's impossible for the retailer to bundle a browser other than IE.
Again, it would be perfectly reasonable for computer sellers to bundle multiple non-MS utilities, including a music player - except that Microsoft has often put barriers in their way making it impractical for them to do so.
For suitably recent definitions of "Long Ago", like last year at ISO.
Re:small change... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft
Visa
American Express
Coca-Cola
Chrysler
Delta Airlines
Oracle
Texas Instruments
Qualcomm
Intel
Apple