Microsoft slammed by European Commission with $1.35b fine
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted February 27th 2008 8:24AM
posted February 27th 2008 8:24AM
It's a good thing Microsoft has tons and tons of money, because they keep finding themselves in a position where they've got to pay out -- big time. Such is the case today, where the European Commission has fined the monolithic company €899 million (or $1.35 billion) due to failure to comply with a 2004 ruling on monopolistic business practices. The Commission found that the folks in Redmond had been guilty of -- gasp! -- freezing out competition by not providing "vital information" to rival software companies. This isn't the first time it's had to pay, as the company already dropped $357 million on the case back in 2006. "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," said Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Perhaps Ballmer and co. saw this one coming when they went "open" last week, though we're fairly confident this kind of fine carries only the slightest sting for the software giant.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
fuel companies? Seriously?
There are so many differences it's not even funny. For one, energy companies are an oligopoly not a monopoly. For another, they are heavily regulated. For another, they pretty much compete equally. For another, energy companies are extremely expensive operations, which is why most are vertically integrated. Which in turn means a few very large companies due to economies of scale. Hence, the oligopoly.
Now of course, there is the danger of collusion. And funny thing, governments are generally very watchful of that.
Sorry, but you really should try to know something about the subject before you talk about it.
c'mon, this is more of a "we have our eye on you" than a "we're taking you down." If MS was sooo bad they'd have been taken down a long time ago. The EU is just attempting to make sure MS knows its place.
As for all the EU bashing, you guys are right, screw the EU and their higher literacy rates, standard of living, education standards, stronger economy, better environmental policy, etc. Screw them all
Rip wrote: "Sorry, but you really should try to know something about the subject before you talk about it. "
Hmm, funny that I have friends who've worked high up in fuel companies. Funny that they all think that those companies are out of control and that no government will tempt fate by trying to crack down on their practices. Funny that the handful of individuals who control the oil KNOW that it would take military action to stop them from bilking the world for as much as they want.
MS's control is MINOR compared to the "royalty" of the middle east and the handful of people who have final say over the cost of oil. Just because there's 10 or so gas/petrol companies "competing" doesn't make it a fair market. Look at who TELLS them what to do.
Why's this pissing everyone off? It's not like Microsoft haven't been given enough warning.
Exactly. Its not the EUs fault that MS can't comprehend the rules.
Geez...Engadget. How about some facts? I am not defending anyone be it EU or MS but there is nothing in this story to allow people to draw any conclusions:
DISPUTE TIMELINE
March 2004: EU fines Microsoft 497m euros and orders it to release key Windows code to rival software developers
September 2004: Microsoft tries to have the ruling temporarily suspended
April 2006: Microsoft appeals the ruling in the European Court of First Instance
September 2007: Microsoft loses its appeal
ISSUE:
"Back in 2004, the commission fined Microsoft and forced it to offer a version of its Windows operating system without Microsoft's own media player. The company was also told to give rivals more information about how Windows works, so they can make their own software integrate better with the operating system that runs some 90% of the world's computers.
Microsoft agreed, but imposed a high royalty rate on the information, saying it was charging for the innovation involved.
The Commission decided that the rate - initially set at nearly 3% of the licensee's product revenues - was unjustified.
That wrangle lasted until October 2007, when the company agreed to reduce the royalty rates. This latest fine is intended to punish Microsoft for non-compliance with the EU ruling up to that time."
Doesn't apple (automatically) include their safari in their OS? Why isn't that seen as anti-whatever...?
The absurdity of this situation is that the EC has actually sealed documents which outlines the actual complaints against Microsoft to let them know what technology they need to share. Despite repeated filings and requests by Microsoft, the EC has also pointedly refused to specify exactly what Microsoft should do to comply. It's more than obvious that the EC intends compliance to be an unachievable moving target so they can find Microsoft.
The companies who pushed this case (Apple, Sun, Oracle, et al) will regret the day they did when the EC extorts them. (The same thing applies to the US--due to socialistic government programs, most states are hurting for money. The tobacco industry was a boon. Microsoft was next. It won't stop there. Some states, like Mississippi, are already worse than the Mafia was.)
Yeah everything is secret and changing. Also, the EU was killed JFK!
Look what the communist mafia is doing now:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/27/vista-capable-sticker-lawsuit-gets-class-action-status/
Can't they just leave Microsoft alone? *cry* They're clearly innocent.. *weep*
If you think the Vista labeling lawsuit is about protecting consumers, and not about lawyers cashing in, you are a fool and an idiot.
Some very misinformed comments. The EU is doing what the US should have done, except the government at the time were bankrolled by MS.
It isn't about giving competitors MS code, it is about providing the API's that MS does not disclose.
So the reason MS is anti-competitive is because MS can write code for its OS that will always be more efficient than its competitors because MS fails to disclose all the application interfaces to the OS. How can anyone write a more efficient program than MS is they only have half the 'language' to communicate with the OS that MS does?
Incidentally this does not only affect European companies, but also American companies, Australian Companies. In fact, anyone who wants to write code for Windows and wants the same API's that Microsoft does. You might want to think about that before you claim the EU is being out of order, its just done everyone a favour.
Also MS wanted nearly 5% of the royalties from code you wrote (patent license) that used these 'undislosed' API's, and that is what the EU found unreasonable. Now you can pay 10,000 euros, compete on an even keel with MS, and only have to pay 0.4%. If MS would have done this in 2004 then they would not be being fined again today.
Your comment is close to 100% bullshit. I've been writing commercial applications for Windows for 18 years. I've never needed nor had to resort to undocumented APIs.
Having thought about it for a minute or two, I have an analogy for you guys.
Imagine you're a pianist. And MS makes pianos. In fact, MS makes 95% of the pianos in use in all the concert halls, in all the homes, and in all the theatres and recording studios. Now, unless you work for MS making music then you find that half the keys don't work because MS won't give them to you. No matter how great a pianist you are, you are always going to be at a disadvantage to an MS musician.
That was pretty much the situation before the 2004 ruling.
I am sick of the EU. I am to going to defend MS, but they are the biggest because the people have made them the biggest. If you don't want to run MS, buy a machine with no OS (or remove MS from a machine) and install Linux. There is a reason these other OS's do not gain ground, most people want to use what works in their situation. I have a MacBook but still have to run Windows in VNWare because the programs require it. Big deal!
I have heard the developers of Opera where pushing some of this. Have you tried Opera? I did and did not care for it. I use Firefox. I know IE is there and there are time I have to use it. Big deal. It is part of the OS. Why does that bother people so much.
I am sure MS makes a lot of money in the EU markets, but I wonder what would happen if the told the EU to stuff it and left? I keep hearing MS cannot acquire Yahoo because the EU would never allow it. Since when do the Eu get to tell two US companies what they can do?
"Since when do the Eu get to tell two US companies what they can do?"
After asking that question you should notice yourself, you don't know what's going.
Your post hurt my brain.
So what the EU is basically trying to do is get everyone to place nice and be successful, but not too successful. Because if you don't play nice with others and let everyone benefit from your work you might get ahead of the competition and that simple will not do. Then the EU has to go and line their own pockets by suing you for not playing nice with others.
Jumping JC, the EU has the business equivancy of the "No child left behind" program.
Again? Please bother to read everything written so far if you're going to post. It's getting old..
What is your problem? This benefits American companies just as much as as does Europeans. We are talking about protocols that MS refused to disclose to other programmers. You cannot reverse engineer them to find out what they are. Its like trying to code with one arm behind your back, regardless if that arm is American, African, European or Asian.
The US should have broken MS into two divisions. One for the OS, and one for the Applications. If you really believe that MS is not blatantly being anticompetitive then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I guess Teddy Roosevelt's leveraging the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 18-freakin-90 made him "socialist" too huh as others here have thrown around without shame. Puh-freakin-lease. The EU wants to steal our precious bodily fluids.
You don't really "get" software, do ya Drew?
Wilky, I've been programming Windows for 18 years (yes, before Windows 3.0 was released) and have NEVER needed to resort to undocumented APIs. This EC lawsuit is 100% bullshit and is about hitting up companies for much needed money. If you think this is going to stop at Microsoft, you are sadly mistaken.
MS has a right to protect whatever protocols and stuff that they want.
If you want to write a program - then do it. The tools are available. If you need to write your own API to do something - do it.
They would've written another crap like Vista with all these money.
I think it would be wildly amusing if M$ gave Europe a big FU and did something drastic to bone them. Imagine if all of the sudden all the Windows + SQL Server installs in Europe stopped working. Epic lulls.
how fookin precarios is it that one company can say FU and screw the world.
Except Microsoft makes MORE than 50% of it's money in Europe... so screwing Europe would be suicide. And we have this thing called Linux, quite a few governments in Europe are thinking about using it... please, do give them a reason to stop sending money to Microsoft. Please! hahaha
This is ridiculous.
Here is what I have been saying MS needs to do for the EU.
They need to make a WindowsEU Version.
It will install, but will have absolutely nothing. No browser. No media player. Not even notepad.exe
Make it available for $100.
Each program add-on will be $50.
Do you want IE so you can actually get on the internet and download Firefox? $50 please.
Notepad? $50 please.
MS Paint? $50 please.
WMP? $50 please.
So much of this anti-trust crap is just that - crap. I don't care that Windows comes with IE. I don't use it except to download FireFox on a new install. It doesn't prevent me from running other browsers. WMP doesn't prevent me from loading my own media player - and I just use Media Player Classic anyway.
What would happen if MS decided to stop selling or licensing Windows to ANY European company or individual? No more Windows. No MS software. No more support.
Please don't tease us with visions of Paradise.
Well, lot of crap is those comments.
First, consumer has no choice. Try to find a PC without windows. Try to play games without windows. Try to read/write 100% compliant word documents without windows (or office). It's just impossible. Microsoft created a complex ecosystem where it's almost impossible for a company to work without microsoft.
Even now, It's difficult to find a new PC without Vista, which is known as a pretty bad product.
Claims of the UE comission migth appear to be non sens but actually the ecosystem is so complex that the comission has to find some way to de construct it.
And for those that advice microsoft to stop selling products in UE, I think that will be the last thing they'll do. Why ? Because it would create a computer industry ecosystem without microsoft. They almost give their product in India for free to avoid that.
I want to order WindowsEU please.
92% global market share and now they want all the Internet. Too little too late I say - reign that company in before they control everything.
it's a frigging mordor scenario - one OS to rule them all .
Let them fry!
MS don't want a competitive market, they want the market.
When they get the market then they will have the power to dictate what we do and don't get, there will be no negotiation on price then.
Just for their bad attitude alone I think they got off lightly.
The new EU tax- "Businesses outside our megatax countries that make money, give it to us" tax.