Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

EU Finds Microsoft Guilty Of Abusing Monopoly 57

Posted by timothy from the off-with-head dept.
cabalamat2 writes "The European Commission's draft report on Microsoft says they are guilty of abusing their monopoly position. The ruling proposes that Microsoft be fined; the amount of the fine will be decided in March or April, and the maximum fine permitted is 10% of Microsoft's global turnover, about $3.2bn. Microsoft are allowed to appeal against any judgement that goes against them, to the Court of First Instance, and it's expected they will do so, to drag out the process as long as possible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Finds Microsoft Guilty Of Abusing Monopoly More

EU Finds Microsoft Guilty Of Abusing Monopoly

Comments Filter:

  • The EU hasn't changed their minds [slashdot.org] from a few days ago.
  • And in other news: Kids like to play.

  • But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eht ( 8912 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:11PM (#8114561)
    For some reason Microsoft whose only real crime is too much capitalism while DeBeers's monopolistic practices encourage slavery and for real wars.

    • This is NOT off-topic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @03:00PM (#8115031) Journal
      Zealots are modding this guy down, but he's got a good point. While everyone wants to see Microsoft brought to heel, why is Europe so hot on monopolies now, when DeBeers has had one enforced through blood and terror for decades?

      The answer, I suspect, has less to do with justice than the feeling that MS is harming Europe's native software industries.

      • Well, DeBeers isn't an American corporation. I'm sure if Cheney, err, Bush, would have backed off on Iraq, the EU would have backed off a bit on MS (though I doubt they would have bent over for MS like the US did).

      • I'm getting modded down for a couple reasons, I didn't say anything about how great Linux is, I pointed out that Europe is full of weenies just like everywhere else, I didn't bash Microsoft enough.

        Then again I didn't say anything pro Microsoft either, I was just pointing out how if you want to go after real problems in the world, Microsoft is nearly the least of them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dago ( 25724 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @03:36PM (#8115430)
      The things which is forbidden is not to have a monopoly and do things to keep it, but to use it in an unfair way to gain over competitors in other markets.

      MS did that with windows -> internet explorer, media player.

      DeBeers : diamonds -> ???
      • The things which is forbidden is not to have a monopoly and do things to keep it, but to use it in an unfair way to gain over competitors in other markets.

        I'm not sure what EU law is on the matter, but US law states that it is illegal to do certain things to maintain a monopoly, and, in fact, these were the easiest things to prove against Microsoft in it's antitrust case (and most of those which they were found guilty of have supposedly been remedied, or at least are remedied if Microsoft does what they

        • It's not just about pushing your way into other markets, but also about preventing people from entering your market. This is why Apple was ruled out as a competitor in the OS market, because the hardware platforms are themselves a barrier preventing consumers from switching from an MS OS to an Apple OS (of course, this completely ignores the fact that many (if not most) consumers simply buy a new computer instead of upgrading, but I'm not the one that made the ruling).

          A couple of things.

          First, Judge Jac

    • Re:But monopolies that encourage slavery are ok (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Diamonds are needed in factories that make weapons. All countries without local diamonds fear DeBeers cutting off the supply. Industrial diamonds are sold at a fair rate unlike gem quality ones.
    • Yes, but does the EU have any juristiction re: DeBeers?

      DeBeers is a cartel that buys diamonds and then markets them. DeBeers' dominance comes from getting just about all diamond producers to sell to them via a wide variety of tactics.

      Clearly there aren't any diamond producers in the EU.

    • Are you smearing EU because it's not hard against De Beers just because it's an european based corp? Well, let me put this straight: perhaps De Beers is such a filthy rich beast infiltrating every western world lobby enough to keep rolling the evil business as they've always had. Perhaps there are other monopolies that stranglehold the world economy, provoke wars, make life a misery for millions of innocents (OPEC)... is EU the only hypocrite? Perhaps there are other monopolies that aren't as high profile b
    • You're quite correct; there are worse companies than Microsoft. However, Europe apparently still clings to it's colonial attitudes: "Well, as long as they're not killing or enslaving Europeans, why should we care?"

  • Wake me up in 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:19PM (#8114641)
    When Microsoft will have finished their appeals. By that time, they will have already crushed the competitors whose misfortunes initiated this inquiry. Furthermore, new anti-trust violations will be pending on new behavior, which will not be settled for another few years.

    Late justice may as well be no justice. The courts of the US and EU need to find a way to act more swiftly in such matters.

    • Re:Wake me up in 2007 (Score:5, Funny)

      by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:32PM (#8114754)
      Hey, give the EU some credit. At least they are imposing a penalty.

      • Re:Wake me up in 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @03:01PM (#8115034)
        Hey, give the EU some credit. At least they are imposing a penalty.
        Yes, I agree, this is commendable. But I seem to remember a much more severe judgement being handed down several years ago--the splitting of the company. Unfortunately, that did not survive appeal. While the current judgement is a good sign, it means nothing until the appeals have been fully resolved.
      • What happened to the US case? I remember something about guilty, then something about everything is over
    • I think that in order to appeal they should have to up the ante. Say for each appeal you get a possible 25% added to the maximum fine. They could even fine extra for each motion filed. They could tack on extra fine based on the amount of delay. Right now they have no reason not to appeal. Even just from inflation the fine they would have to pay is 3 to 4% less each year they can put off paying it.

  • Who gets the money? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben@@@int...com> on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:21PM (#8114657) Homepage
    What I want to know is, if they do get fined $3.2 billion, who gets it? I suppose the lawyers will get thier cut before anyone else, but what are they going to do with the $2 or $3 million left after that?
    • I'd assume it goes to the same place taxes do: government programs, grants, etc.
      • Taxes are budgeted. You don't tax people and then figure out how you're going to spend the money...you raise taxes to fulfil a specific need. So unless the EU 2004 operating budget included a line item for penalties paid from suing Microsoft, they were not expecting to get this money.

        Which is why it's so important to figure out where it's going. Where it should go is into the pockets of individuals and corporations that were damaged by Microsoft's behavior. Where it will probably go is into some politican'
    • the lawyers are probably on salary..

      this is not some usa-style class action suit... but officials doing their work.
    • Pleeeeaaasssse! They will probably work out some deal where if they were fined 3.2bn or 32k or whatever, they will hand over a certain amount of software etc. to pay the fine. BTW, said amount of software will probably be the same no matter what the fine is, M$ has a way in inflating the price of their software. Of course this will be done under the guise of improving the school systems or gov. offices etc. and of course with increase M$'s market share and give them a firmer grip on their monopoly. I'm
    • but what are they going to do with the $2 or $3 million left after that?

      Use it to pay Microsoft support to figure out why their machines are crashing. Then they will have to buy $3bn in upgrades to fix the crashing.
    • What I want to know is, if they do get fined $3.2 billion, who gets it?

      Hello my name is Mr Setag, and I come from... some place far away. Yes, that will do. Anyway I say we invest that money back in Microsoft.

  • So (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wizarddc ( 105860 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:40PM (#8114828) Homepage Journal
    If they appeal, and lose, do they also have to pay interest on their fine? They were found guilty of abusing this power now, so if they drag it out 3-5 years, do they have to pay back interest on that 3.2 billion? Wouldn't that be a deterent for the long, dragged out cases? If they have to pay a few years of coupounded interest, they might not be so lawyer happy.
    • Basic principle is that everyone is entitled to appeal their judgement. Courts have been known to be wrong and so their should be nothing put in the way of taking it to the highest court.

      EU especially had some pretty stupid rulings overturned by the highest EU court.

      Then again a criminal who pleads guilty generally is sentenced less then one who claims innocence and is found guilty. But this has proven very dangerous in american with innocent people pleabargening since they can't afford to prove their inn

      • "The evil"? Do you really call MS evil in the traditional, child-killing, mother-raping, sense of the word? I realize that MS is a company that has engaged in immoral business practices but to call them "evil", I think, goes a bit too far. Sure, MS steps on peoples toes and sends them packing from the industry but they're not exactly committing genocide, are they?

        One of the other comments in this article mentions the DeBeers company, which raises an interesting point. The diamond industry does far more dama

  • *cough* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @02:44PM (#8114854) Homepage Journal
    BIAS*cough*

    to the Court of First Instance, and it's expected they will do so, to drag out the process as long as possible.


    Like any company anywhere given the opportunity to appeal wouldn't do so...

    Monopolies are made because the financial benefits outweigh the legal risk. And because we give companies the chance to harrang a few million dollars litigiously.

    Not like dumb people can sue a corporation because they spilled HOT coffee on themselves and win or anything.... Whatever happens in this case will matter little. Who cares if they are fined 10% of their revenue, subtract development and the .1% of manufacturing costs and that will probably barely even ding their bottom line.

    • That is certainly true, therefore I hope that the EU reads /. and takes the recommendations in the article to heart. Those will have a far greater impact on MS in the long term than any fine they can come up with.
  • Microsoft IS allowed to appeal against any judgement that goes against them.
  • Make them give away 3.2bn worth of Windows 95 and 3.11 copies. Better yet, send five copies of each to every household in the EU. Good grief, what right does the EU have to fine a global company 10% of their global profits? At the very most, fine them 10% of the profit they make in the EU; that at least makes sense!
    • That is their profits made in the EU, they could fine them any amount they wished, the alternative is being shut out of the market. It would be tough to collect a fine imposed on a company in a sovereign nation.
    • Fine them based on their EU profits, and you'll soon find they have no EU profits -- "Gee, we keep buying this software from Microsoft USA for $149 each, and selling in the EU for $149 each, and we're not making any money! I can't understand why!" One of the problems with Multinationals is that they can structure their transactions to make all their profits is whatever country benefits them the most.
  • How is that fair? Shouldn't it be related to how much business they do in the EU?
  • In certain European countries company directors do not enjoy the immunity from some aspects of the law that they do in the UK, and even more so, the US.

    I wonder if this means that Sir Bill is heading for the Bastille?

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close