Fine, but......
.... where does the money actually go ?
Microsoft has been fined €561m ($731m, £484m) by the European Commission for breaking an agreement to offer Windows users alternative web browsers to Internet Explorer. A fresh investigation was launched against Microsoft by Brussels' competition officials in mid-2012 following complaints that the company was still using its …
No one knows where the EU moeny goes. The EU accounts have only been given a clean bill of health by the EU's auditors once in the last 15 years.
If the EU was a business, it would be struck off.
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/eu-budget-irregularities-found-eca/533658
Try looking up what happens to the budget and what projects it is used for rather than relying on the Daily Mail.
You don't have to like the EU if you don't want to but at least base your dislike on some facts.
Not the best article but here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
"No choice popup on Apple, Google or Linux devices devices "
Well every Linux install ( I use OpenSUSE) gives me a two browsers immediately available (FF & Konqueror) and another 5or 6 others available in the distro. IF Microsoft deigned to write IE for Linux then I assume that would be available too.
The original poster said Apple and Google, no-one suggested Linux didn't have a plethora of browsers.
But you have to wonder how Apple get away with it on iPhone. Presumably If MS had banned all the other browsers on windows they'd have been ok.....
"No choice popup on Apple, Google or Linux devices devices"
Microsoft were targeted on this as an incumbent monopolist, and one already convicted of abuse of the powers such a position grants. I would expect the EU or some of it's member states to react more or less the same to others, such as is beginning to happen with Google.
"Microsoft were targeted on this as an incumbent monopolist, and one already convicted of abuse of the powers such a position grants."
Not quite. There are no laws against being a monopoly, but there are laws against abusing that dominance. And of course, having that kind of market dominance, whether as a monopoly or not, subjects one to special scrutiny and legal norms to which other entities are not subject.
Furthermore, Microsoft was not "targeted on this as an 'incumbent' monopolist", they were held responsible for violating a legal agreement; and having to adhere to such agreements is the duty of anyone agreeing to abide by them, irrespective of the reasons why they agreed. "Incumbent monopolists" are not the only entities required to abide by legally-binding agreements.
"Microsoft were targeted on this as an incumbent monopolist, and one already convicted of abuse of the powers such a position grants."
Not quite. There are no laws against being a monopoly, but there are laws against abusing that dominance. And of course, having that kind of market dominance, whether as a monopoly or not, subjects one to special scrutiny and legal norms to which other entities are not subject.
Yes - that would appear to be exactly what I said.
Furthermore, Microsoft was not "targeted on this as an 'incumbent' monopolist", they were held responsible for violating a legal agreement; and having to adhere to such agreements is the duty of anyone agreeing to abide by them, irrespective of the reasons why they agreed.
The targeting I was referring to was the original complaint - not the breach of agreement - perhaps I was unclear on that. As part of the original complaint, the issue of Microsoft having a dominant position in the marketplace was most certainly germane.
"Incumbent monopolists" are not the only entities required to abide by legally-binding agreements.
Of course not - I never said otherwise.
I'm sure this has been explained before, but some people still (wilfully?) misconstrue this.
MS have a monopoly on operating systems for PCs.
MS abused this monopoly to ensure their browser became dominant on PCs.
MS and the EU negotiated a settlement. They were allowed to keep their monopolistic position in PC operating systems, in exchange for providing a browser choice screen.
MS accidentally or deliberately breached their agreement, and reverted to abusing their monopoly for 18 months.
Neither Apple nor Google have a monopoly on operating systems for phones.
Since there is no monopoly, you have a choice of what browser and OS combo you desire.
The original fine was for abusing a monopoly. This fine is for not following to their agreement.
"MS and the EU negotiated a settlement. They were allowed to keep their monopolistic position in PC operating systems, in exchange for providing a browser choice screen."
And if the EU decided to forbid Microsoft from having a monopoly, how exactly would they have gone about enforcing that? Would they have forbidden Microsoft from selling Window in the EU? Would they have forbidden computer users in the EU from using Windows? No, this statement of yours seems to be incorrect. I believe - although I could be mistaken - that the consequences of not providing a browser choice and thereby continuing to abuse their market position were simply continued fines and not some sort of revocation of their right to have a monopoly.
Wrote :- "And if the EU decided to forbid Microsoft from having a monopoly, how exactly would they have gone about enforcing that?"
A hypothetical scenario, but forcing MS to provide a sure and easy refund route if the user did not wish to use the pre-loaded copy of Windows would be a start. A freeze on TV advertising would be another way.
"Neither Apple nor Google have a monopoly on operating systems for phones."
I own both devices and on first startup, they both have a default, embedded browser (Safari and either the old "Browser" or more recently, Chrome). Yes you can get other's through their respective app stores but at no point are you informed that there is a choice.
Is that not the exact same thing Microsoft were fined for initially and had to rectify?
The only reason why Microsoft had a so called "monopoly " is that they made a pretty damn decent operating system that almost everyone uses, one, I might add is the primary reason why most of you have jobs and can do much of the work you enjoy.
Witness again the power of the free market over the power of punitive biased judgements. MS STILL have the majority share of operating systems regardless of the EU.
How many of you really make your living interacting with browser manufacturers?
The comments by other posters regarding Apple and Google having a "monopoly" are more valid than you give credit for.
In fact they have exactly the same "monopoly" that MS has, great products are rewarded with many users.
What part of that can you not grasp?
There's no need to feel sorry or not sorry for Microsoft or the EU. Microsoft is a company making billions of $ in profits, selling the same stuff (albeit updated) to people again and again. They probably have loads of contracts with the EU. As for the EU, it's full of burocrats. How many are there? How much does each of them earn, tax free? How much do they claim as expenses? I don't know.
The eurocrats, who are skimming off masses of money from taxpayers in the EU, want a piece of the Microsoft action. They introduce a requirement for Microsoft to put up an annoying and time-wasting screen on its OS. Nobody in their right mind cares about this screen, it's more an inconvenience than anything else. Microsoft does or doesn't comply. Result: massive fine / kick-back. Everybody profits, Microsoft keeps its contracts, part of your cash ends up in the eurocrats' bank account but that's always happening and this way, you don't feel the pain.
I can only assume your American and don't understand how the EU works. You can easily find out the salary levels if you want to.
This is nothing to do with EU civil servants this is to do with an abusive company who chose to sign an agreement in order to avoid a fine..... and then decided not to keep to the agreement. The fine they've now got seems entirely fair to me.
I don't think you can really compare a fine to a kick back as the fine doesn't go into the hands of those who issued it.
Dear Matt 21,
You are far too perceptive, you sussed me out in no time. I'm an American indeed. Or at least an aspiring American, an American in spirit, you might say. If someone were to offer me a green card, I would doubtless take it. Who knows, it could be fun.
I am also sorry to have intimated that the EU's bureaucrats take kick-backs and to have lied about not knowing how much they earn.
Regards
A. Cowshed
Microsoft embeds IE in their operating system, which is part of the problem of abusing their dominance in the desktop PC market.
Knowing about other browsers doesn't change the fact one cannot get rid of IE in a Windows OS. You will carry that extra code and storage space no matter what you decide for a browser choice. And any chance it gets, IE pops up for use, and seeking preferential, default, treatment.
We have one computer left in our household with Windows. It has three browsers, one for me (chromium) one for my wife (firefox) and that "background" snake (IE).
"Technical mistake"... Right They're damned right, they take full responsibility for it! I wonder which exec/s signed off on telling the EU screw off. This just shows that MS are not "eating their own dog food", considering all the cloud, VM, CRM, and nightly build checkin tools they have.
With all the frickin' databases and servers and control systems they have over nightly builds, and CRM tools at their disposal, they are surely being disingenous at the least, because it was SOOOO simple for them if they wanted to to roll such a thing across all their divisions. I am pretty sure they must be offering such strategies to their JIT and fortune 500 clients, especially the tier in the Fortune 20/100/whatever.
All they needed to do was to build into their executive daily dashboard was "Items that if overlooked would cost us over $100m dollars spread across a period of X months".
If a software or legal requirement is one of those triggers, then an event trigger would flag up the CEO, even if the division or department manager tries to suppress it.
It would be very easy for the EU to just say, "Look, MS is LYING. Just fire a 650 million pounds cruise missile INTO their bow."
It is just wanton disregard. With 20,000-40,000 employees and contractors, SOMEbody there must have though of what I am thinking, and proposed it. That means, somebody shot down the idea and said "Fuck the EU High Courts. We're an AMERICAN Company!"
So, then, the EU courts or ministers probably determined, "The fine SHOULD be levied at 10%, or the $7.4 BILLION. No reductions, no argument, no appeal. Just as Apple is losing what it asked for. These big companies need to LEARN!" But, they reduced it to even 10$ of THAT.
MS is lucky. They'll probably push a button and roll out the changes in the Patch Tuesday for next week and argue for mitigation and reduction of the fine down to $70 million, maybe even just $7million to spare the courts of expensisvely chasing the money over the next 5 years. (Or, the EU could just embargo ms, freeze their accounts, or summons and then arrest the cognizant exects....)
Wrote : - "Fining MS for not including a link to a competitor's FREE product. 99% of users know alternative browsers are available."
Nowhere near 99% know that - a high proportion think the "Internet" is integral to their machine. Even if they are aware, they are only aware like the owner of a brand new Audi (say) is aware that he could get a replacement souped-up cylinder head - but there is no way that the average Audi owner is going to opt for it.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. 99% of PC users are aware of other browsers? I'm afraid not. In fact it's probably closer to 99% that couldn't tell you what a browser IS never mind which they use. As someone who supports "regular"end users both home users and business users most of them will respond with either "erm" or"google" when asked what browser they use, and even to get that answer you have to ask the question twice.
"what browser do you use"
"...."
"what do you use to get on the internet"
"oh, google."
If your experience differs i'd suggest the people of which you speak are certainly not your "average" PC user. if 99% of people knew of other broswers, what they are called, even what a "browser" is then there would have been no issue with MS/IE in the first instance.
I have Adblock on by default. It is not selective against one or another website.
Personally, I dislike adverts mainly because they get in the way of me reading what I choose to read. Like ad's at football grounds that are live on the telly, flashing away to distract from the actual football / rugby / racing et al.
It is about choice and if sites like El Reg [which I do enjoy] choose one business model or another, I will respond this way or that. It is the push and pull of life......
Wrote : -"So how are the Reg, funded by advertising, supposed to run if everyone uses adblock?"
1) Because there are always some people like you who do not. (Do you actually go out and buy the stuff too, just to make sure those marketing droids stay happy)
2) The advertisers will pay the Reg anyway because they haven't realised what a cynical and hard-baked lot we are.
> how are the Reg, funded by advertising, supposed to run if everyone uses adblock?
This is why I don't block ads on this site.
But that bloody Sim City ad is getting on my pecs today. It kept locking up my work machine & I had to kill the Flash process :-( I think I might be about to start blocking ads...
Vic.
Please....Your point is lame.
Unless Apple is brought into the mix... Apple has yet to be "Fined" for its tactics of mandating that its users MUST HAVE AN ITUNES ACCOUNT. Apple is far more restrictive in its ways then MS ever was.
Never has MS prevented its users from installing and using a different browser. If the idiots can't even download a new browser then they should own a computer. Give em an Apple, since apple understands there are idiots out there and everything must be done for them.
The EU is just trying to generate revenue by hook or crook, to support all its inept babies sucking on the tit of the beast IMO.
Best wishes,
Why we have to pay more for some MS products in Europe than in the US.
I don't see a victory or anything of the sort here; because eventually you'll know who will be paying the actual bill. The same population which this EU moloch is supposedly trying to protect. Yet when that happens you won't hear the EU anymore. Because price differences are something which simply happen...
Monetary fines mean nothing to a company like Microsoft that can afford to pay without blinking an eye.
If they take away the rights of others, should not their rights be taken away as punishment?
Rather prohibit them from making any sales in the affected countries for 17 months!
i know.. i know... would never work....
If Microsoft made cars would you chastise them for using their own gearbox rather than a Renault?
If Microsoft made ready meals would there be anger that the smaller farms don't get to sell them their produce?
If Microsoft was cow would we complain that it's didn't produce yoghurt instead of milk?
If Microsoft flew business class would we expect it to upgrade all the customers to first class?
NO NO NO NO NO - Microsoft is a software company that is in competition with other software developers. It hasn't done anything wrong. If I was a lawyer I would be trying to level the playing field by having internet explorer installed on chromebooks and on Macs
If Microsoft made cars would you chastise them for using their own gearbox rather than a Renault?
If Microsoft made ready meals would there be anger that the smaller farms don't get to sell them their produce?
If Microsoft was cow would we complain that it's didn't produce yoghurt instead of milk?
If Microsoft flew business class would we expect it to upgrade all the customers to first class?
If you weren't a moron, would I still be replying?
Your analogy is utter shite. A better analogy would be:
Microsoft make cars.
The only cars you can buy are Microsoft cars.
Someone invents satellite radio.
Microsoft bundle their own satellite radio in all cars, destroying the satellite radio market.
To understand this case, you really need to understand what "monopolistic abuse" is.
If I was a lawyer I would be trying to level the playing field by having internet explorer installed on chromebooks and on Macs
Are you saying Apple have a monopoly on PCs, or Google on laptops? Are you brain damaged?
MS used to make a version of IE for macs, it was horrifically buggy, incompatible even with the (semi) equivalent windows version. Bringing it back would be akin to a war crime to web developers.
Erm can I just point out that your anology is also utter shite!
Microsoft do not prevent you from installing other browsers. This is about them "abusing" their position by only having IE installed. A bit like what Apple and Google currently do.
As far as I can tell you know what monopolistic abuse is, but one day you might get a girlfriend.
Microsoft do not prevent you from installing other browsers. This is about them "abusing" their position by only having IE installed. A bit like what Apple and Google currently do.
It's not about "installing", its about "bundling". MS abused their monopoly to bundle additional software, destroying the market place for that additional software. Besides which, you continually miss the crucial point that this applies to monopolies. Where is Apple's monopoly? Where is Google's?
My example, as you say, isn't ideal, since MS did not need to wait until someone bought a new 'car' to get the 'MS Satellite Radio', it was simply delivered as an automatic update to all computers. It would be more like MS retro-fitting all cars with the new radio for free, overnight.
This is the point I was trying to make clear to you, but you are being intentionally obtuse/AC shill/who knows.
I disagree with you on all levels.
You can buy a laptop with Umbuntu - if you want?
You can buy an iPad - if you want?
If you buy an iPad it comes with Safari - if you want - you install skyfire or mercury
If you buy a laptio with Umbuntu - it comes with Firefox and some others
Is there IE for Umbuntu or iOS - I really do not know. If you buy Umbuntu or an iOS in the first place do you really don't want anything to do with Microsoft in the first place - lets me honest.
You buy a WIndows desktop - you get IE - IF YOU WANT, you can install whatever you like, Firebox, Chrome, Safari (?).
It's blatent Microsoft bashing on the face of it.
But at the end of the day, MS had an agreement with the EU, they broke it, they got fined.
I hope the EU crack down on the others to the same extent next, having to have an iTunes account to drive an Apple device for instance,
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist caught in the act of using its monopoly of one product to force consumers to use another of its products
> You can buy a laptop with Umbuntu - if you want?
You might like to look up the legal definition of "monopoly". that's the one they're using for all this. Whatever might be in your head does not change that.
> It's blatent Microsoft bashing on the face of it.
It is not.
> MS had an agreement with the EU
Yes - and that agreement was a *settlement* for a previous conviction. By not fulfilling it, they were not paying the penalty for breaking the law beforehand. It's very much akin to someone absconding from an open prison.
> having to have an iTunes account to drive an Apple device for instance
Until and unless Apple become bound by monopoly legislation, that is perfectly legal. Apple is not a monopolist, in the legal sense. Microsoft is. Different rules apply.
Vic.
Your analogies totally miss the point. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist caught in the act of using its monopoly of one product to force consumers to use another of its products.
Let me fix them for you.
If Microsoft coerced 99% of car manufacturers into using Microsoft engines and required car buyers to retrofit an adapter to let them use non-Microsoft fuel would you chastise them?
<Enter your favorite witty analogy involving Microsoft, ready meals and horsemeat here>
<And another one...>
If Microsoft flew 99% of all flights and forced all passengers to wear Microsoft clothing, watch only the Microsoft in-flight movie, read only the Microsoft in-flight magazine. They can only listen to their own music or see their own films if they use Zunes or Surfaces?
If Microsoft had a search engine would you expect it to give its competitors prominence?
On an XP machine I was working on this morning (I know, I know, but its old and only has 512Mb of RAM), it wouldn't allow me to download or install Microsoft Security Essentials unless I upgraded by browser to IE8.
Even though it wouldn't be used for web browsing, and if it were, Chrome would be used.
"it wouldn't allow me to download or install Microsoft Security Essentials unless I upgraded by browser to IE8."
You twit.
If your still using IE6 or IE7 then installing MS's FREE antivirus will not help you. Using such an old browser only opens up your computer to long-known vulnerabilities. Have you even installed all the security updates since the initial OS Install?
You've set yourself up to be hacked.
Don't be so cheap or at least don't try to do any online banking/purchasing on that machine IMO.
Best wishes on seeming like a tool.
I am not an accountant...
...but I could easily imagine a scheme where one of Microsoft's offshore subsidiaries pays the fine from its enormous stash of offshore (taxed at a very low rate) cash, then bills it back to the Mothership with a hefty service charge thus reducing the mothership's profits and tax liability, consequently making the American taxpayer highly subsidize the European fine.*
Could anyone with any genuine financial knowledge let me know if that scheme has legs?
*Assuming, of course, that Microsoft pays enough US taxes to benefit from this scheme...
Statement that the EU decided to limit the amount fined due to Microsoft cooperating with the investigation.
Why should that result in lowering the fine? MS did not make the initial report that they had not complied for 18 months they have cooperated after this was pointed out to them. Surely legally they had to comply anyway so why is this relevant?
They should have made an example of MS to put other companies of ignoring any similar agreements made in the EU.
Half a billion for a bug affecting some old system that nobody noticed for 18 months.
Meanwhile, everyone has to put up with a retarded choice screen. Thank you EU, and can I say I particularly like having every other site I visit tell me all about cookies. (that one no doubt paid for by M$ first fine).
I wonder how EU will choose to annoy me with this half a billion.
<troll> Linux because one day soon it might actually become usable </troll>
"Half a billion for a bug affecting some old system that nobody noticed for 18 months."
The bug affected Windows 7 Service Pack 1. What, pray, was the new system?
I certainly noticed. I also noticed that at setup / first use I was coerced into installing the Bing Bar, either having to jump through hoops to avoid installing it or to un-install it once I had control of the computer.
I don't often support Microsoft but in this case, if I were in charge of them, I would say shove the EU up its own arse and as of today Microsoft products are not for sale in the EU.
They shouldn't have to promote a competitors products.
The EU 'government' thinks way too highly of itself.
maybe the CEO hasn't 'forgotten'; maybe, like everyone else, he thinks that the EU ministers are a bunch of wankers can can go fuck themselves. I mean, what's the best they can do? Here's the conversation:
You bastard you didn't pay us.
Oh fuck off retards.
In that case we will fine you again.
And I wont pay (again).
In that case we will..... er, what can we do?
Nothing you fucking morons now go get a real job.
A real job? We can't we are politicians so we are unsuitable for anything other than lying and stealing.
> I mean, what's the best they can do?
The first thing they can do is to raise the fine to its maximum level. That's 10% of turnover - someone mentiond the figure of $7B, which is probably about right.
And then they can prevent Microsoft from doing business in Europe. that will cost significant sums in direct income, plus a whole load more in loss of influence.
Telling the EU to fuck off would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Microsoft will not do it. They're already making placatory overtures; they'll pay up the fairly insignificant amount of money they've been fined, and everything will go away.
Vic.
... is that €561m ($731m, £484m) is a lot of fucking money, irrespective of how much the law might have allowed the kleptocrats to take. I'd like to know how they decided on that particular amount. That some bureaucrats can levy this kind of penalty should be worrisome to anyone who thinks about it. Is it appealable, I wonder?
Re. the amount - IIRC this was decided via a complicated equation involving % market share, MS' declared EU turnover and approximate losses incurred by competitors since the monopoly was established. Though I'm sure the judges will say that's what they did...they probably actually did the "finger-in-the-air-then-double-it" estimation.
Go through 'all the hoops' to bring it up to date and, prior to being given a 'choice' end up with IE8. Finally I am asked which browser I wish to use and choose 'Not IE8'. I am allowed to set 'Not IE8' as my default browser but IE8 remains installed on the computer along with its icon on the 'start bar' and is prone to being booted up, as opposed to my choice of 'Not IE8' when I try to do certain tasks. I'm not certain but I believe it is the case that Microsoft will not fulfil some tasks unless you have 'their browser' installed....
So I bite the bullet and via the control panel 'remove' IE8 from the computer. In the process I am warned that it is possible that other bits of software will fail to work if I do so and IE8 will transfer a plague of warts to my first born child. I take the risk and tell it to 'bugger off'... The icon remains and,
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9590/screenshotxp030213arunn.png
Windows Update decides to download various 'patches' for and install IE6 instead. Obviously I clicked on the 'icon' for that screenshot. In the meantime 'Not IE8', as mentioned, has been set as my default browser but, having 'invoked' IE6...
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9590/screenshotxp030213arunn.png
'Not IE6' thinks it is no longer my default browser.
What irritated me was when running updates suddenly finding my browers of choice unpinned and having to through the choice rubbish on machines I already had various browsers installed on.
And secondly the "fine" will be paid by the same captive MS customers (governments, schools etc. included) in increased fees that the EU is supposed to be "protecting" by foisting a choice screen onto all and sundry.
OSX is a monopoly on Apple hardware and you have no enforced choice of browser drivel, I assume if Windows was the only choice on PC's this would not be an issue?
You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is, nor a legal undertaking.
A monopoly ISN'T illegal. The competition authorities may prevent you buying up other companies to create one, but a monopoly in a given field is perfectly OK providing you got there by creating the market or by being the seller of the most popular products in it.
Once you reach monopoly status there are restrictions over what you may do. You are not allowed to leverage your position to get you into another market for example. Microsoft were convicted of leveraging their position in operating systems to force their way into the market for web browsers. To settle this case they gave a legal undertaking to present users with a browser choice screen when the system is setting up. They broke this.
In order for Microsoft to (retroactively) comply with the agreement you were mildly inconvenienced. Tough.
Apple don't hold a monopoly in either PCs or phones, so they are not subject to these limitations. You can't just count devices made by a manufacturer, you count the whole class of devices otherwise you could claim stupid things like "you can only run Samsung software on Samsung TVs".
If you forget or refuse to pay a parking ticket, you might find the subsequent admin and penalty fees can equal or exceed the original amount. Forget/refuse again, and expect even bigger penalties.
Admittedly the decimal point moved a few places along the fee figure, but MS is equally is guilty - it got a fine, and "forgot" to pay that fine. So it got penalised. If it forgets again, the next figure will be even larger.
It's all a very simple concept...even if the scale of the figures are considerably larger. Not really a big deal.
However, it is going to be funny seeing how ineffective a popup box will be, given how much the market (and browser shares) have moved on since the original judgement.
As every browser has to use Safari webkit, and all other browser (e.g. Chrome) are given an uneven playing field to play on, as they can't use either their own JS engine (VB), or even Safari's (Nitro), and are lumbered with the really slow one.
This means Apple have engineered it so Safari will always be the best choice for iPhone users.
How is that legal?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Wrote :- "Nobody want's the annoying browser choice window. Anyone mentally capable of knowing why they might want another browser if perfectly capable of downloading it themselves."
I want it there, so your first assertion is wrong already.
Not for myself (as I am capable as you say), but in order to randomise browsers as much as possible among the general public. In that way, MS (or anybody else) is unable to take the Internet in its own direction, ignoring the rest of the industry regarding HTML standards and imposing its own ever-changing and inadequately documented ones, as MS was once able to do, and did.
How much trouble is it, seriously? It is only when you switch on a PC for the first time. Especially as you yourself (I gather) will only click straight through it with an IE choice, which as we are told, is already there as "part of the operating system"?
For anyone else, it sounds like a convenient way to download an alternative if they were going to have to do it anyway.
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the regulations in the European Union (EU) that govern business practices "there" regarding technology use and services.
The company does not deserve any lenient consideration, particularly by their very arrogant and dismissive attempts to have US Federal Government State Department diplomats (determined to be on their payroll via lobbyists connections) to actually "threaten" the EU about sanctioning a US company, irrespective of the reasons. How contemptible and idiotic is this.
Microsoft were (wrongly) calculating that many millions of US citizens would be appauled and resentful that a "foreign" government(s) organization would dare to punish them for willful wrongdoing, and thus back down in the face of the "almighty" American wrath. Again how idiotic and stupid a gamble, even with the irrational patriotic sentiment of many fellow countrymen. (sic)
This last statement is proven by the response from several commenters questioning what the EU will do with the money. It is none of their concern and has no relevance to the issue involved.
Microsoft's flagrant actions merit no relief, and their total disregard for any of the laws and regulations of other 200 plus countries in the world - for doing business in "their" jurisdictions, needed to be adequately addressed in a strong and serious manner.
Contempt for the flagrant disregard of justice by the obviously anti American EU is not a crime.
We are resentful because Eurocrats (and their ilk) insist on doing everything possible to hamstring sales by our companies and complain like school girls when we do the same in return.
The EU is a huge pit of vampiric political bureaucrats that provide nothing in return for the life they suck from their constituents. Ask the Germans. In fact my government isn't much better but hey at least we did not give up our national identity in exchange for 80% tax rates.
Let the downvotes begin....
Microsoft, Please do not pay this ransom money and instead take that cash and fix Windows 8 so all the complaints can be silenced now and forever. I bet if you gave even half of that money to your programmers, they could come up with something that would make everyone else run and hide in fear, even Eadon.
Fuck the Eurocrasy and the Eurocrites, let them use Linux and what ever "browser" they want to use. The grey market will still sell as much product in Europe as you do now.
You should have never agreed to any of this anti-american crap to begin with. That was a sign of weakness you should have never exhibited.
If a non MS browser is so damn good then the free market says that customers will find it and use it no matter where it is or how hard it is to download. The ones that now use anything other than MS IE certainly would have and the ones who can't figure it out would not have made good customers anyway.
Besides...get this now...no one actually sells the browser... the money that is made is strictly parasitic - advertising and clicks. So who was really injured? Still you can't get a fair trial anywhere these days, especially an American company in Eurpoe. (or vice versa)
Whining Eurocrats only want to jam anti-american, anti-competitive penalties down MS throat to promote and subsidize a product that STILL almost no one uses, (Opera).
Talk about living in the past.. maybe this was an issue in the 90's but not now.
That's what you expect from the French model of society where 75% of the population lives off the efforts of the remaining 25% that still have a work ethic. Lets cut the hamstrings of MS so Opera can have a fair shake instead of letting the market decide.
USA USA USA
Jesus dude. I'm reasonably proud to be from the U.S. (most of the time) but shit like you are spewing makes everyone from the States look like assholes.
Besides you are doing it wrong: a proper Patriot would have MS pay the fine in gold bricks shaped like U.S. flags and emblazoned with the MS logo and airdropped in with little red white & blue parachutes.
Don,
I'm only telling it like it is. Are you afraid of the arseholes that take every opportunity to criticize the US and those who live in it? Why should MS pay ANY fine in any denomination? They should just do something productive with the money and let the EU pound salt.
If the EU is so "Fair" then why have Apple (or other companies, BBC anyone) not been "judged" for the same (or significantly worse) conduct? None of the EU contingent will ever discuss this subject rationally so there's no harm in taking it to the extremes. Extremes even seems to be an El Reg requirement.
Let's face facts, this whole case still revolves around the European Union's misguided (and outdated) "opinion" that MS was forcing IE down peoples throats when in fact, anyone who could download the browser of their choice could still install it, then and now.
This was a purely anti-American punitive judgemment that had little to no basis in reality but was entirely politically motivated. These things happen in elsewhere in the EU, China, and US but apparently most frequently in the land of entitlements. And the US Government is not without it's own slant on punitive judgements ala Apple V Samsung.
MS makes Operating Systems as it's main business and Office Productivity software as its secondary business. It only provides a browser for the convenience of it's users and that is not the main thrust of the company.
MS did in fact "integrate" the browser into it's operating system but you could always download and install Opera or almost any other browser and use it. Why is including a browser considered "anti-competitive" any more than providing some other software to be used for any other specific purpose?
The unfair tactics of the EU courts allowed the "advertising subsidy" of a browser selection page and a huge fine and literally no legal recourse of any value to MS.
What did selection page really do for any of the alternate browsers that looking them up in Google (or some other EU approved search engine) and downloading them would not have done? They still used IE to download the browser of their choice.
What if MS had not included a browser to begin with? That would be rather inconvenient don't you think?
This browser argument was stupid then and getting even worse now. Everyone always had a choice of browsers then and now. You just had to be a competent computer user to do so.
Wrote :- "If a non MS browser is so damn good then the free market says that customers will find it and use it "
That is the "Grantham Grocer Fallacy"
The free market does not work that way in the realm of hi-tech. Being too complex for Joe Sixpack to understand, he just takes the word of advertising and salesmen instead.
The "Best" only has a chance of emerging in a free market in the case of simple and frequently purchased things, groceries for example, which most people can understand.
See :- www.nuke.demon.co.uk/grantham_grocer/index.html
IMHO that's too bad, let Darwin sort out the smart and competent from the stupid and incompetent.
If we stop trying to support those who aren't intelligent, they will eventually get dropped from the gene pool and the human race will be better for it. That's not a "fallacy".
Otherwise, we are breeding a culture of stupid cows that have come to expect they will always be taken care of even if they have nothing to contribute to society!
Besides you are doing it wrong: a proper Patriot would have MS pay the fine in gold bricks shaped like U.S. flags and emblazoned with the MS logo and airdropped in with little red white & blue parachutes.
Sure they would. Judging by the daily increase in the national debt, most of that gold is foreign owned anyway..
MS broke an agreement plain and simple. Get the cheque book out.
The rest is Microsoft bashing.
All the major players are doing it. If you have a tech you want your customer to be using it - the issue being you cannot lock them in to using it.
At what point do Microsoft stop you from installing another browser? Fine, IE is bundled, so what?
I hope the EU clamp down on Apple enforcing you to have an iTunes account to do anything.