Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EU Fines Microsoft $1.3 Billion

Posted by kdawson on Wed Feb 27, 2008 08:39 AM
from the cost-of-doing-bidness dept.
jd writes "The EU has slammed Microsoft with a fine of €899 million ($1.337 billion at current exchange rates) for perpetuating violations of the 2004 antitrust ruling.The fine is the sum of daily fines running from June 21, 2006 to October 21, 2007. It is the first company ever to be fined for non-compliance. The amazing thing is that the EU now expects Microsoft to comply and 'close a dark chapter' in their history. The EU has opened new investigations into Microsoft's practices and gave a lukewarm response to the company's turning over yet another new leaf last week."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft's New Leaf On Interoperability 371 comments
A large number of readers are submitting the news that Microsoft has made a major announcement about interoperating with others including specifically the FOSS world. The impetus is the ongoing EU antitrust case against Microsoft. The announcement comes in the context of the release of 30,000 pages of API documentation for Microsoft Vista, Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, Office 2007, Exchange Server 2007 and Office SharePoint Server 2007 — and a listing of patents that apply to these technologies, and a pledge not to sue open source developers who use the APIs. InfoWorld summarizes by saying that Microsoft "promised greater transparency in its development and business practices." Fortune is blunter, saying "Microsoft declares truce in open source war." Here's Microsoft's FAQ on the open source interop initiative.
[+] Technology: IE8 Will Be Standards-Compliant By Default 383 comments
A number of readers wrote in to make sure we know about Microsoft's change of heart regarding IE8. The new version of the dominant browser will render in full standards mode by default. Developers wishing to use quirks mode for IE6- and IE7-compatible rendering will have to opt in explicitly. We've previously discussed IE8's render mode a few times. Perhaps Opera's complaint to the EU or the EU's record antitrust fine had something to do with Redmond's about-face.
[+] Intel Faces $1.3B Fine In Europe 280 comments
Hugh Pickens writes "European antitrust regulators, who have been aggressively pursuing what they see as anticompetitive practices among technology companies, could impose their largest fine ever in a market-dominance case against Intel. The commission began investigating Intel in 2000 after Advanced Micro Devices, its arch-rival, filed a complaint. In two sets of charges, in 2007 and 2008, the commission accused Intel of abusing its dominant position in chips by giving large rebates to computer makers, by paying computer makers to delay or cancel product lines, and by offering chips for server computers at prices below actual cost. Some legal experts speculate that Intel's fine could reach about a billion euros, or $1.3B. 'I'd be surprised if the fine isn't as high or higher than in the Microsoft case,' said an antitrust and competition lawyer in London. In 2004 Microsoft paid a fine of €497M, or $663M at current exchange rates, after being accused of abusing its dominance; the EU imposed another $1.3B fine in Feb. 2008."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cosmotron (900510) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:41AM (#22572306) Homepage Journal
    That's 1.337.
        • Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spun (1352) <[loverevolutionary] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @11:18AM (#22574564) Journal
          Whatever Mr. Tinfoil Hat. "Oh Noes, teh big bad gubamint is gonnas taks all my monies. Dey is teh DICTATOR!" You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people. You won't find them in Europe though, no matter what your libertarian fantasies tell you. By comparing the government of the EU to real dictators, you are pissing in the eye sockets of all the people those real dictators have tortured and murdered.

          Try finding a way to voice your concerns without resorting to hyperbole. We're all pretty smart here, you don't need to make a bigger case than you've actually got for us to 'get it.'
            • Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fondacio (835785) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @04:01PM (#22578628)

              "You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people." The removal of powers from elected parliaments, by devious method, to an unelected and undemocratic executive, Council of ministers, which holds its meetings in secret, unelected commissioners, and a very weak parliament that is bought and paid for by the latter.

              Too bad that your prejudice has kept you from keeping track of recent developments. This criticism has been levelled at the EU for a long time and was to an extent justified, but guess what? They have actually done something about it. The European Parliament, which is directly elected and no longer as weak as it used to be, has received new powers with every treaty revision since 1992 and plays an integral role in EU law-making. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are not secret, as you can see on its website [europa.eu], which states: "All Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure are open to the public. The Council's first deliberations on legislative acts other than those adopted by co-decision are open to the public. The Council regularly holds public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens, as well as policy debates on the Council's programmes." FYI, the co-decision procedure is the most commonly used procedure in EU legislation. Granted, institutional reform is slow, the EU still has work to do in terms of its accountability and communication with citizens, but that hardly makes it an evil oppressive dictatorship, which is the point that you were trying to make. Apart from Belarus, you will indeed not find oppressive dictatorships in Europe at this time, and the EU was established precisely to keep it this way, which brings me to your next point.

              Yes, Europe has a fine tradition historically to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes yet again. Europe's ability for arrogance is only matched by its fantastic ability for creating evil, two world wars, and hundreds of millions of dead. How could I possibly not trust a European elite running out of control, and with a massive cavern where democratic due process should exist, but doesn't.

              Please explain first who you mean by "Europe" and who exactly is being "arrogant". Is it Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden? Does every single one of this country have a "fine tradition to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes"? Last time I checked, Germans are still making up for the crimes of the nazis and not exactly preparing a second Holocaust. The Scandinavians no longer send out marauding bands of pirates to rob frightened people in coastal places. In Spain acknowledgment is slowly growing for the abuses and oppression of the Franco dictatorship, even on the political right. Italy does not seem eager to resurrect the Roman Empire. You may note that none of these examples has anything to do with the other, which illustrates that you can't generalise across an entire continent. I could even go on and argue that the one country which seemed unable to learn from history (notably European colonial history) in the last few years, with an elite running out of control causing millions of dead, does not lie in Europe, but I don't want to ignite another flamewar. In any case, as I mentioned before, the EU was established to prevent repetition of the mistakes of the past. It has been rather successful at that, considering that France and Germany are unlikely to go to war with each other at any point in the near future. It obviously does not have a perfect record, as was shown in the fall of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Still, I fail to see how you can see the current European elite as being "out of control" or suggest that it will cause millions of people to die any time soon.

              This same EU that's failed 13 years of account audits?

              What does failing 13

        • Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Flipao (903929) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @12:27PM (#22575480)
          You can't have free trade when a single corporation owns the marketplace. That is why the EU stepped in, to preserve "free trade" ensuring there IS competition.

          The EU is not an evil government and Microsoft is not a defenseless do-gooder. This is not the first time MS has been in trouble because of its business practices, althought in the US, since Bush came to power, they've sure enjoyed a nice ride over there, haven't they?
  • And what if not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mapkinase (958129) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:46AM (#22572376) Homepage Journal
    I wonder what happens if MS ignores that order as well... They won't be able to ban Microsoft products, I guess.
    • Re:And what if not? (Score:5, Informative)

      by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:59AM (#22572550)
      The EU will simply take the money by force. Microsoft has assets moving through the EU, in the form of their revenue from sales of their products. The EU will walk in to the retail outlets and take that revenue until they have their money - the money from every copy of Windows and every xbox sold will go directly to the EU, and Microsoft will never receive it. This is the standard method that courts use for extracting fines from recalcitrant corporations - you don't ban their products, you just take their products.

      And they'll keep doing it for as long as it takes.
          • by KevinIsOwn (618900) <herrkevin.gmail@com> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @03:02PM (#22577678) Homepage
            I've seen this argued in a number of places, including the FairTax book. To an extent it is correct, however this isn't a reason not to fine corporations. Simply put, in non-monopoly situations the free market sets the price, not the corporation. This means that if a corporation is fined and raises prices as a result, its competitors benefit because they do not have to raise prices. If the company that gets fined does not raise their prices, then their margins go down (which means less profits or even possibly write downs).

            So lets apply this to Microsoft and then the free market in general. In this case Microsoft will have to pay lots of money to the EU. If they attempt to pass this cost on to consumers, it will strengthen OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc as alternatives to Windows. This means that in the case of Microsoft monopolizing the market, the EU fine can accomplish its task of lessening Microsoft's stake in the market if it is large enough. But if they have full control of the market, well that's why governments reserve the right to break companies up. If a fine would not be sufficient to punish a company, they could be split into smaller companies that would have to compete against each other.

            So in the end, it isn't necessary to give the fines to Microsoft's competitors as you propose. Simply the act of fining Microsoft should be enough to help its competitors out.
      • Re:And what if not? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Richthofen80 (412488) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:59AM (#22572552) Homepage
        Probably a terrible precendent, actually. Imagine some off-brand European retailer selling 'Windows XP' that they've compiled and pressed to disk. People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

        If I built soapbox racers in my garage at home and branded them BMW, then someone lost a head in a collision in my not-quite-safe car, don't you think that BMW would be less than thrilled?
      • Re:And what if not? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sepluv (641107) <blakesley&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:40AM (#22573086) Homepage

        Hmm, now I wonder just what MS has that's worth $1.3B? Windows/Office copyright perhaps?
        Declaring their copyrights fair game would definitely be an absolute last resort. It would effectively be the same as outlawing MS. It would also probably go against international treaties and piss off the US of A.


        This judgement seems pretty final (MS has been showing contempt for the court for years) so, to answer the question, I'm guessing if MS don't pay up now, the EC will just freeze their EU bank accounts, and rumour has it that Microsoft keeps most of its money in Ireland as a tax dodge. I guess they could raid their offices and take away their furniture (or what's left since Ballmer's last European trip) too, but that would be messy and not too cost effective—I'm sure MS has billions in the bank.

        • Re:And what if not? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mike2R (721965) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @10:37AM (#22573982)
          There have been incidents of outright corruption, true. But if Microsoft started passing cash in brown paper envelopes they'd be in real trouble.

          What Europe doesn't have is the legal "corruption" of corporations financing politicians campaigns' in exchange for favours - which is what grandparent was alluding to I think, and the primary reason Microsoft doesn't have the sort of influence it does in the US.
  • From a BBC News article on this: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6998490.stm) "Meanwhile, in the world of servers the fight is still on, with a new kid on the block - the open-source Linux operating system - making as strong gains in the market as Microsoft." (bold mine) I mean really.. new kid on the block? who is writing these?
  • by Numen (244707) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:47AM (#22572404)
    I'm a .NET dev, and rather fond of the platform... don't groan too loudly... but even I think this is a good move. I'm glad to see the EU actually prepared to hold large corporations accountable to the law. A pet hate of mine is a legal system that will sanction heavily a private citizen for minor crimes but effectively tut disaprovingly when a large company dumps waste in a river.

    Now, I'd like to see the EU start to use the same stick on large companies that also feel that they are above the law.
  • Did you see that? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eggplant62 (120514) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:58AM (#22572536)
    Porcine-mounted aviatrices with huge breasts just flew past my window!!

    I'm absolutely stunned that someone, some government, finally got up the nuts to face off with the Monopoly. Took 10 years to get done, but FINALLY!! Think we'll see some big changes at Microsoft soon? Watch carefully. The fireworks are about to start.
  • by Panaqqa (927615) * on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:05AM (#22572638) Homepage
    ...to see what the reaction would be if Microsoft indicated that it was simply not going to pay the fines. They could go further and say that attempts to force payment would result in an amount equal to the fines going to pay for moving part of their European workforce to a non-European location. Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? Not for sale, and by the way, all other support and licensing contracts will not be renewed after they expire.

    I would be very interested to see what would happen if a tech giant decided to play hardball with a government. After all, the Microsoft decision makers that count would be beyond the reach of the European authorities in terms of arrest and imprisonment.
    • by cptdondo (59460) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:35AM (#22573018)
      You don't really understand the scale of government, do you? I work for a small (tiny, miniscule, microscopic) government agency. We have maybe 50 or 80 employees. Our budget for next 5 years is in the hundreds of millions (US$). I award contracts worth tens of millions of dollars on a routine basis.

      If MS was to try and pull that, we'd contract with Red Hat, Novell, somebody, and be up and running before the licenses expired. There's only a few apps that are Windows only that don't have linux equivalents; if someone was to throw a few million at it they'd be ported to linux in no time, even if it meant running with wine in the interim.

      Try a stunt like that with a real government that can throw billions at the problem, and MS would find itself in the freezer. Remember, governments can pass laws; they can easily pass a law suspending copyright until they get it sorted out.
    • by weber (36246) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:35AM (#22573022)

      Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? Not for sale,

      Oh - and those licenses, we don't need them: you copyrights are void.
    • by stonewolf (234392) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @10:01AM (#22573374) Homepage
      Yeah, it would be interesting to see a major corporation declare itself to be above the law. They already act that way. And MS clearly believes they are above the law. But, they have never made the mistake of publicly declaring that they are beyond the law.

      But...

      I had the misfortune to have to do business with MS in the '90s before the first judgment came down against them in the US. They told us privately that if the US government tried to break them up they would just move across the border to Canada or just buy a small country, preferably an island, and move the whole company out of the US. They also threatened, privately, to just stop selling Windows and technical support to the US government.

      I was working for a baby bell at the time and so we were able to explain to them what it is like for a company to operate for 60 years under judicial supervision. Not nice. In the US a federal court judge can throw the entire executive staff of a company into prison for as long as he likes if they pull the kind of thing you suggest MS pull. They can appoint people to run the company until such time as it is in full compliance with court orders. And, a federal judge can send US marshals anywhere in the world to capture these people. (Yes, it may be kidnapping in the country where they reside... but the judge can still do it), and a Federal Judge can request that the President use military force to capture some one. So yeah, they can send in the Marines... Ok, that last bit is very unlikely to happen, but it could.

      I do not know what the EU can do against a company that flaunts its laws. But, I am sure that at least some of the member states have laws similar to those is the US.

      Just an example... I once worked for a fellow who was indicted for murder in the state of Illinois. He lived in the state of Utah and Utah declined to extradite him. He now is unable to leave the state of Utah. If he sets foot out side of Utah he can be arrested and most likely will be extradited to Illinois where he will be tried for murder. The same could happen to all the board of directors and all the executives of MS. They could be extradited to the EU to face criminal charges there, or if the US refuses to extradite them they could find that they can never safely leave the US again for fear of being extradited to the EU and spending a large part of the rest of their lives in jail.

      No country can fail to react swiftly and harshly to any attack on the sovereignty and that is exactly what MS would be doing if they did what you described.

      Stonewolf
       
    • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @10:09AM (#22573500)
      Every time MS vs. EU is discussed on slashdot someone drags this stupid argument out of the closet.

      MS would be very, very screwed if they would try to do anything like this. Let me put things into perspective:

      The EU area has a GPD of $14.51 trillion, while MS has a revenue of around $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.

      Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.
  • by Leemeng (970560) <leemeng&softhome,net> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:21AM (#22572814)
    MS would probably want to pay up quick, before the dollar devalues even further...
  • by zerofoo (262795) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:22AM (#22572832)
    It seems that America is losing its ethical way. For the most part, our government's "hands off" approach to regulating businesses and enforcing the law with respect to corporations is coming at a huge cost to the average American citizen.

    Europe and the "nation-state" of California may be our only hope of leveling the playing field with regard to how corporations do business.

    We, as a nation, need to demand that our elected leaders start regulating these companies for the good of the country and the planet. It should not be wrong to force telecom companies to open their networks to competition, or to require stricter air quality and fuel economy from the energy and transportation sectors of our economy. How about regulating banks and credit institutions with regard to credit risk? Then punishing banks that make stupid decisions - and then sell those stupid decisions to other investors.

    To those that say that more Government will only screw things up: Look around you. Corporations left to their own devices have screwed things up royally in the last 8 years.

    Football games have referees for a reason - the same reason that businesses need government regulation. You can not have a level playing field without government regulation.

    -ted

  • Neelie Kroes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:35AM (#22573016)
    European Competition Commissioner [europa.eu]

    Because the European Union is a progressive liberal democracy, she is allowed to have more balls than her US opposite number.

    Microsoft needs to get a move on. The fine is in Euros, and if the Euro continues to appreciate against the dollar when they eventually pay it may bankrupt them. (this is a joke. It is a feeble joke but a joke nonetheless.)

    Incidentally, and this is quite true, one of the lawyers for Microsoft summarised their case like this: "We are Microsoft. We are the good guys. So what we want to do is right." Now compare that with HP, who have people based in Europe who talk to the Commission and say, in effect "We would like to do so-and-so. Is that all right?". Strangely, you don't hear about massive fines for HP over their dominance of the office printer market.

    It has been clear to me for a number of years that Microsoft simply needs to grow up as a company, like small children who, if their parents do a half decent job, learn to get what they want by politeness and cooperation, not by kicking, screaming and stealing toys. But, in order to change, they have to recognise the need for change. I suspect that their technical people are well aware of this, but some of the management is still in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode. The MS XML saga is pretty conclusive evidence of this. I bet there are project managers in ISO who by now will do their best to sabotage any Microsoft standards project, simply because they have been so pissed off by them.

    • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Informative)

      by mallardtheduck (760315) <stuartbrockman@NOSPam.hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:57AM (#22572526)
      As I understand it, fines issued by the EU go to EU member states.

      I also don't understand why the size of the fine "clearly" indicates that people are lining their pockets. This is not the largest fine ever issued. (ExxonMobil was fined $5 Billion for Exxon Valdez, later halved, but so far not paid.)
      • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fondacio (835785) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:21AM (#22572812)
        Indeed. The fine is a percentage of the turnover of the company in question (small companies get relatively small fines, large companies relatively large - hence the size of the MS fine). It flows into the EU budget, which is also composed of contributions by EU member states. So basically, the fine adds 899 billion euros to the balance, which means that the member states need to pay less.
    • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Informative)

      by Teun (17872) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:25AM (#22572870) Homepage

      I'm curious as to where that money is going to be going. 1.3 billion? Clearly some people are taking advantage of the situation in an effort to line their own pockets.
      A stupid remark, you should be whipped.

      From the EU website:
      The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States and so from taxpayers.
      So in deference to us paying the Microsoft tax Microsoft is paying (a small part of) EU tax, brilliant :)
      • Re:1.3 billion (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WiglyWorm (1139035) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @08:57AM (#22572532)
        I'd prefer to have seen Microsoft go the way of Standard Oil or "Ma Bell". The problem was, I don't think anyone in the courts at the time really understood the issue.
      • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Admiral Ag (829695) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:05AM (#22572626)
        What's 1.3 billion to Microsoft? They threw a cool billion away because they couldn't be bothered doing proper quality control for the 360 and they threw away 4 billion on the original Xbox. Lord knows how much more they've thrown away. They probably burn $100 bills for fun.

        The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.
        • by kisak (524062) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:33AM (#22572990) Homepage Journal

          The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.

          You mean waterboarding?

        • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)

          by twistedsymphony (956982) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:45AM (#22573160) Homepage

          The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.
          What's that? Personally I think the best punishment would be to hit them where it hurts. If the fine isn't paid in X number of days Ban the sale of all MS products in the EU until the fine is paid, then once paid give them X number of days to comply or the ban gets reenacted and wont be reversed until it's paid AND they comply.

          This is the most appropriate punishment because it is MS's anti-competitive behavior that would ultimately lead to them being barred from competing in the marketplace. It's not like people wouldn't be able to buy Macs or install Linux for their OS or use Open office/other alternatives for productivity.

          Heck it might actually do the industry some good, nothing breeds innovation like necessity.
          • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)

            by IndieKid (1061106) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:54AM (#22573292) Journal
            I think it would severely hurt industry across the EU if the sale of Microsoft products were banned, especially since the EU has to deal with the rest of the world who for the most part use Microsoft products. It's just not possible for free/open source software to inter-operate effectively with Microsoft products at the moment, which was kind of the whole point of the anti-trust ruling.
        • True (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @10:05AM (#22573446)
          There was a time when parking fines in London were less than the cost of an all-day parking space. Predictably people parked wherever they liked. The solution was much stiffer fines, wheel clamping and the ability to tow cars away and impound them.

          The same thing is happening here, complying would cost more than the fine. We need some equivalent of "wheel clamping" for Microsoft.

          I wouldn't count on it happening though, I can see states getting used to a regular "microsoft fine" dividend. They will probably have a routine of Microsoft saying it will clean up, not doing so and being fined again.
          • Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)

            by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @11:22AM (#22574632)
            This is not about Microsoft making such great products that others can't compete, it's Microsoft using business practices which *have no bearing whatsoever on the technical quality of their products* to manipulate the market in their favor.

            In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market.

            There's a point of view that what Microsoft is doing is completely rational, and that the problem isn't what MS is doing, but that their competitors *don't* do those things, and instead naively try to compete on technical quality and consumer appeal. While I disagree with this point of view, there's one aspect I can agree with, which is that MS is acting rationally. What the EU is doing (or should be doing) is imposing such extreme restrictions and/or fines on MS that it is no longer rational for them to abuse their position the way they do.

            That's why the answer to:

            isn't 1.4bn rather excessive
            Is no. In fact, it may by too low, if it's insufficient to get MS to change their ways.
    • Re:Unfair? (Score:5, Informative)

      by apathy maybe (922212) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:03AM (#22572610) Homepage Journal
      Repeat after me,
      "You are not allowed to use a monopoly in one area to try and leverage an advantage in another area."

      That is why different rules apply to Apple and various X/GNU/Linux distributors as apply to Microsoft.

      Microsoft has an effective monopoly in the desktop OS market, and by bundling Windows Media Player (and MSIE for that matter...), they are creating a situation where people might use it to create WMP files (especially as that is the default).

      You might say that it isn't a big deal if people rip CDs to WMP, but then they want to play them on a portable media player, they have to make sure that it plays them. The company that makes the media player is giving a kick-back (patent licencing?) to Microsoft, and thus Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly in the desktop OS to give it an advantage in another market.

      That is just one example of why they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but there are plenty of others.
    • Re:Unfair? (Score:5, Informative)

      by peragrin (659227) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:56AM (#22573324)
      MSFT has complied with that part of the order. It took MSFT 3 years to comply with other parts Like licensing CIFS/SMB to third parties without the cost overhead. That is how SAMBA got the file formats.

      Because MSFT dragged their feet in complying they were fined some 2 million euros a day. This is that fine. this has nothing to do with windows media player as MSFT already took care of that part by releasing a media player free version of windows.

      Also as a side effect this is 1.3 billion less dollars that MSFT will have to buy Yahoo with. Some 6% of the cash MSFT has on hand.
    • by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:04AM (#22572620)

      If they want it to be proprietary, it's their right.


      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it.
      • by Ash Vince (602485) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:44AM (#22573144) Journal

        Further, businesses do have rights, and if I started talking about how telecoms had the "right" to tap our phones because the government bloody well said they did, I'd be getting similarly flamed. So get past your hatred of "M$" and look at it objectively.
        The point you seem to be missing is that the EU is a government body that has the ability to legislate. That means that you have to obey EU competition laws if you are doing business in Europe. Saying anything else is like saying that I can come to the US and ignore local laws, I can not. This is not saying I do not have rights when I visit the US, but it is saying that my rights when in the US are dictated to me by the US Government, which it turn has to follow the constitution and whatever else. If I do not want to follow US federal or state laws I only have one choice assuming I do not want to risk prison: Do not visit the US.
      • by Teun (17872) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:14AM (#22572732) Homepage
        There is evidence the money would have to come out of the European operations.
        Last week one of their managers said in an interview that the cost of the EU-required documentation had wiped out most income of the past year.
        And now the EU does not accept this documentation :)
        Or more accurate, does not accept the price attached to it.
    • by stonewolf (234392) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @09:33AM (#22572992) Homepage
      Not really... Not to stock holders.

      MS's stock price is down and going lower. MS's cash equivalents on hand have drop from a high of over $50 billion to near $20 billion. MS is plowing billions of dollars a year into product areas such as the X box and their online business that are losing billions of dollars every year. Having to pay a fine of $1.3 billion costs them about 7% of their cash on hand. That is $1.3 dollars that they can't spend on developing new markets, it is #1.3 billion they can't ever hope to use to create stock holder value. This is a big enough fine to cause MS's board of directors and MS's executives to be sued by the stock holders and removed from their offices.

      This kind of a fine, especially if it is followed up by stock holder suits can lead to a drop in the stock price that will cost Gates and crew billions of dollars off of their personal net value, force to company to pay the stock holders an equivalent amount of money, and force major changes in the board of directors.

      This fine is a big deal.

      Microsoft may well be heading into a perfect storm of legal shit.

      And, do not forget that the only reason they got a slap on the wrist in the US is because MS spent lots of money on the Bushies and their corporate dogs. The Bushies and the whole neocon (neofascist) crew are not going to be in office in January 2009. The political storm sweeping the US right now is like nothing I have ever seen before. And I lived through most of the 1950s and 1960s.

      MS is in trouble.

      Oh... for those with no perspective, this is a story that is going to play out over the next 10 years, not the next 10 months.

      Stonewolf

    • Re:7.6% (Score:5, Insightful)

      by apathy maybe (922212) on Wednesday February 27 2008, @10:01AM (#22573384) Homepage Journal
      They don't get to keep their monopoly. They get to pay the fine and change their behaviour or get fined again.

      That's how it works in the EU, you don't get to continue doing what you were fined for after you pay your fine! (Otherwise people would be speeding all the time, and when stopped would say, "I already paid my fine", and would get let off!)

      I think it works that way in the USA too, but don't quote me on that.