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."
That's Surprising... (Score:3, Interesting)
Their motto is usually "pry it from my cold, dead hands" in regards to these fines.
Wonder what's with the change of heart?
Re:Punishment (Score:1, Interesting)
Not only is it not a lot for Microsoft, it's probably less than the legal bill would be if they tried to appeal it.
Their options are basically give the money to the EU, or give the money to the lawyers. Why even bother? Either way, you're screwed.
Re:"Anti-competitive" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Laugh it up Mein Herr (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it means the retailers are free to determine the price vs. the wholesale price. Some of the cheaper ones will sell it cheaper than they do currently, and some will sell it at RRP or higher. Competition in the market is restored.
Microsoft don't get to set the price. That's the point. The can recommend one but they cannot make retailers sell at that price.
Re:Eurodollar to US Dollar (Score:5, Interesting)
To make matters worse, eurodollars are not nor were they ever euros. Eurodollars [wikipedia.org] are regular, plain US dollars that are deposited outside of the US's jurisdiction and therefore out of the control of the US's central banking system. So I guess someone heard that new term somewhere and didn't had time to know a bit about it before spreading it around. To put it in other words...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Re:small change... (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a product, and subsequent versions of that, which people utilize is not a monopoly. To punish a company for making a successful product is wrong - it makes companies not want to create such products. Monopoly means no other options - but there are other options. There are other OS there are other office productivity software. The market helped make MS the dominant producer.
You state that IE and WMP should not be bundled in with their machine - that is your opinion...mine is different. If I didn't have IE built into my computer how was I supposed to go to Mozilla's website and download firefox? Or should I have been forced to grab an AOL CD and install their crap-ware on my computer? If I didn't have WMP pre-installed on my computer how was I going to listen to music? Install Real player and all the spyware that came with it? It still boggles my mind that MS "should" be forced to install their competitors products into their software. How about Red Hat be forced to install IE or WMP? Or Mac be forced to use MS Paint and MS Office instead of their own version? Every OS has their preferred versions. Nobody is complaining about those products. Let's take this into other markets. How about BMW be forced to install Ford's dashboard? Hyndai must now install lamborghini tires.
What MS did wrong, and it was done a LONG time ago so we need to stop beating the "anti-trust" drums like they do this everyday, is force retailers to use their products. Geez this didn't happen last week, this happend a decade ago. At some point it gets old.