EU Fines for Microsoft Approved, Off the Record 692
mattaw writes "The Register is carrying a report that all 25 member states of the EU have found Microsoft guilty of non-compliance, off the record. Microsoft is in line for a fine of $2.51 million per day backdated to December 15th 2004 for failing to meet the terms of the EU commission's ruling."
so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I find some of Microsoft's business practices to be anticompetitive, handing over monies to governments isn't really going to do anything. Giving money to competitors won't help anything, since they won't learn to be competitive with handouts...
Honest question, not trolling... I'm wondering what they should really be doing, besides forcing Microsoft to stop doing business in member states as long as they remain noncompliant, perhaps.
-Nev
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with forcing non-compliant businesses from operating?
We should be wondering what Microsoft should really be doing, besides non-complying with anti-trust, anti-competitive laws, and stonewalling progress and crippling the competition. What'd be your honest answer to this question?
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will simply force MS to rethink their compliance, or face a whole continent migrating to other operating systems.
Re:WGA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that's what is being said. MS is only being fined for mis-conduct... they have not... so far at least, been told to get out of the EU.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
It's called milliard. At least in most of Europe.
num - US - UK
10^3 - thousand - thousand
10^6 - million - million
10^9 - billion - milliard
10^12 - trillion - billion
10^15 - quadrillion - trillion
10^18 - quintyllion - quadrillion
You need to specify Europe or US when speaking bignum, or you may end up 3 orders of magnitude away from desired goal.
In Poland we say "Microsoft placi 1.4 miliarda dolarow" and nobody mentions billions of dollars that easily.
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
See: long and short scale [wikipedia.org]
Re:so? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
million -> milliard -> billion -> billiard -> trillion -> trilliard.
It would be correct to use billiard and trilliard in the UK as well, though it's not used.
Reference: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutw
Billions and Billions (Score:3, Informative)
A billion is bi-million which is a million squared (10^12)
A trillion is a trillion which is a million cubed (10^18)
etc.
Sometime in the 1920s American journalists started using billion for a "thousand million" and it caught on. Prior to that the term wasn't commonly used. Sometime in the 1980s the BBC gave in and started to mis-use the term as well. It causes a lot of confusion in the rest of the world (except India, which has its own plethora of names) where they do use t
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
US Imperial SI
10^3 - thousand - thousand - kilo
10^6 - million - million - mega
10^9 - billion - milliard - giga
10^12 - trillion - billion - tera
10^15 - quadrillion - trillion - peta
10^18 - quintyllion - quadrillion - exa
Re:so? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, I thought splitting MS Office from MS Windows seemed reasonable. The point being, not to shut anything down, just to require Microsoft to expose their roadmap and APIs enough for other companies to get in the game. Yes, I can see why Microsoft would kick and scream and drag their feet on that. Having a lock on 95% of the market is pretty awesome, just look at their financial reports for the last 15 or so years in a row. But their dominance is not good for the market; not just for competitors, but for consumers (which in this case is mainly other businesses outside the computer industry).
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS's attempts at compliance were deemed inadequate even though they protested that it was "too hard" to comply to the degree that the EU wanted. We'll see if it was $1,000,000,000+ too hard.
This fine is more like a contempt of court charge, and doesn't let MS off the hook. They're still expected to comply.
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Linux can win if services are open and protocols are simple, transparent. Microsoft can only win if services are closed and protocols are complex, opaque."
So here is proof that the closed APIs are not necessary for MS software, as they might state, but a preplanned way to make war with Linux.
And to all you unenlightend peope that will say that MS isn't making war with Linux, that is just the price of doing business, I will direct you to another portion of the same document.. "Long term credibility exists if there is no way you can be driven out of business in the near term. This forces change in how competitors deal with you."
and the translation of that into understandable language..
"Note the terminology used here driven out of business. MS believes that putting other companies out of business is not merely collateral damage -- a byproduct of selling better stuff -- but rather, a direct business goal. To put this in perspective, economic theory and the typical honest, customer-oriented businessperson will think of business as a stock-car race -- the fastest car with the most skillful driver wins. Microsoft views business as a demolition derby -- you knock out as many competitors as possible, and try to maneuver things so that your competitors wipe each other out and thereby eliminate themselves. In a stock car race there are many finishers and thus many drivers get a paycheck. In a demolition derby there is just one survivor. Can you see why Microsoft and freedom of choice are absolutely in two different universes?"
Are you really that stupid, or are you trolling? (Score:4, Informative)
Because MS does everything in its' power to make it not interoperate.
because offering a peek at the goddamned source code didn't go far enough, right?
No, it didn't. Not when the "peek" meant that you can't actually fscking use anything you might learn from it. If the "offer" didn't include a draconian NDA, then it might have come close.
What great MS spin you have there. You must work for the justice department.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
No, because the source code is NOT what was ASKED FOR. How can people not understand this? Go read the halloween papers. You will see why MS went as far as to try giving source instead of actual API documentation, because that is how badly they DON'T WANT to do that, not because they can't, or it's too hard as they say.
Here, feel free to read up on what is actually going on right here...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.htm
then maybe you'll see how much of a bully MS actually is. Anything that would put a stop to that has my full approval.
FYI: It's mainly about network protocols (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like a small thing because that's not the whole thing, and it's the least of the non-compliance problems too. MS was basically ordered there to _also_ sell a version without it, which isn't even much of a punishment when they can keep selling the version _with_ Media Player too.
The current fighting is over the other, and more important part there, namely APIs and protocols. MS has been given a list of stuff it must provide adequate documentation for, and to everyone. That's all.
Basically what the EU is saying is "wtf? A situation where only Windows workstations can talk to a Windows server is a recipe for a monopoly. Do be so kind and provide the documentation for those protocols." It's just telling MS that its products should compete with others on their merits, not on being the only thing that can interoperate with their other products. It shouldn't be years of guesswork and reverse engineering just to get a Linux or Solaris box to talk to a Windows server.
And MS so far has been playing hardball and turning it into a media battle. It started by pulling stunts like selling some libraries and docs preferentially and putting some stupid conditions on getting them. (E.g., literally, you can't use them in an OSS product. Literally.) Then it offered a bunch of undocumented and incomplete implementation code. (The EU says: sorry guys, we asked for protocol documentation. Be so kind and provide the docs.) And so on. And, again, it's been busy astroturfing and turning it into a media posing contest.
And IMHO the court has played pretty nice so far. Even the fine is "backdated" and thus so large, because, seriously that was the final date at which MS was ordered to provide those docs. At some point, after giving MS ample time and letting them delay for years, the court basically said, "No, this is final. At date X you must provide those docs or pay a fine per day." It still gave MS more timeouts even after that, and a chance to not pay those fines, but under the explicit condition that, seriously, if MS still doesn't comply than the original date still stands.
Basically, seriously, if I did half that shit in a court of law, I'd be in contempt and probably facing some quality time behind bars. I'm not anti-MS or anything, but at some point a court of law must be able to enforce compliance or it becomes just a joke. You can't allow someone to basically just refuse to obey for years.
The Harrison Bergeron Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is a little upside down compared to other parts of the legal system, and that counterintuitive element is probably one reason why the issue is sticky. For example, in the realm of personal conduct, the law w
Re:The Harrison Bergeron Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, it makes much more sense to tell them what they must offer.
Microsoft must provide the documentation and APIs associated with programing Win32 applications, file formats, and network protocols. These must be avaliable at a nominal fee.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience the problem is that the customers don't give a damn about long term effects - they are only interested in the *current* state of affairs.
I.e. customers want lots of software to be bundled because it's easier for them *now*. They also want vendor lockin because they don't have to bother making decisions. Pulling the plug o
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems so obvious now!
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is granted by governments to legal entities (individuals and corporations); thus, what is granted can also be taken away. It's a grant, not an inalienable right.
Although I don't think the E.U. has the cojones to actually do it, it wouldn't be totally outside their power (well, it might be -- I don't know whether the E.U. handles copyrights -- but as a government, fundamentally they wouldn't be) to strip an entity which didn't comply with its laws, of some of the protections afforded to compliant entities.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
That's as far as I can tell, anyway - admittedly my knowledge on internation politics isn't crash hot.
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Governments grant copyright licenses, not corporations. The EU can easily say that Office&XP are no longer covered by copyright. Copy at will. Matter of national security. And guess what, in this instance they'd be right; you don't want the entire government to be beholden to a corporation that can pull its product on a whim. Thi
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy. Refuse to honor their IP. All MS copyrights in europe become public domain, all patents are invalid. Done deal.
Re:so? (Score:4, Interesting)
The EU has countless weapons in stock, from migration plans to subsidies to large-scale grants. If Microsoft pisses off the EU enough Brussels might just decide to pump a couple hundred million Euros into Mandrake in order to develop an alternative to every product Microsoft sells, including the XBox controller. Or they make a law that keeps Microsoft from bribing institutions with free licenses. This is a big game of Nomic and Microsoft is not allowed to make up rules. The EU is.
Re:so? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, that's exactly what did happen with the X Window System.
Anyway, governments can issue Compulsory Purchase Orders e.g. to buy land that is required for road building projects or s
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
That's exactly the point. The EU told Microsoft to do so two years ago, and Microsoft failed to comply. What else should the EU do other than fine Microsoft ? Hold a gun to Bill's head until he's finished writing the documentation ? Put the company executives in jail ?
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's more like Microsoft HASN'T gathered its employees to clearly document interfaces in compliance with the EU ruling.
I believe the EU (and Microsoft competitors) already responded to that. The documentation isn't clear enough, and conveniently leaves out many hidden details that continue to provide Microsoft with a competitive advantage.
And if you read the pages behind the link you provided, you'll see very clearly that the program has ROYALTIES attached to it. It would be acceptable to charge a reasonable one-time fee for technical documentation, but ROYALTIES??
Not really true. The "judge and jury" has only become part of the dispute because Microsoft has failed to comply with their previous judgement.
Have you considered that Microsoft is, as usual, trying to get away with the appearance of compliance while at the same time continuing to milk their own cash cow?
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
here's also a program which gives access to source code specifically trying to appease the EU here
Which getting leaves anyone reading them open to accusations of copyright violations if they even look at them.
Personally, i think that the fact that the communication protocols that the majority of the world rely on, appear to not be properly documented, a rather scarry state of affairs.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
They have explicitly been ordered by court to document the full capabilities of certain frameworks and protocols. There have been long arguments about it and the judges found that in this case it is completely unreasonable for Microsoft to keep those secret for a huge variety of reasons mostly relating to Microsofts market position and behavior. Had they been reasonable themselves in past times, this would not have happened.
It is completely reasonable to expect a company to comply with the law and court rulings in a territory where they want to do business
Publishing an interface is a big deal, since a published interface is set in stone for eternity.
And if they don't document them properly how are their own products going to work? Oh, and changes can be dealt with by updates to the documentation (silly concept eh?)... Oh, those don't exist? back to square one, how is your own software supposed to implement them..
It's simply good design practice to expose as little information as possible about how to exploit/abuse the internals of a component.
1. Hiding your implementation details is not a design decision, it at best a way to hide the idiocy of your design decisions
2. Keeping interfaces obscure is not helping the non exploitability of Windows at all. Not only is this argument well known to be false (security through obscurity), Microsoft's products also show how consistently it fails in the real world.
So.. the only argument you have there is that it is in itself reasonable for them to want to hide certain information. Too bad that due to their own misbehavior in the past, they are not allowed to hide some information that they'd like to keep hidden. Since they didn't comply, they got fined.
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
A better question is why a full blown media player, music ripper, web browser, or other application should even be considered part of the OS. But if Microsoft are going to ship such things and freeze out the competition, then yes they should be required to ship alternatives on their DVD. Since they have 1.2Gb of space left even on the larges
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind: enforcing their judgement. MS, along with most American corps basically get to play Cartman in real life. They break every moral, ethical and legal code but when it comes time to pay the piper, a few well placed bribes or a just suggestion that perhaps at some point in the future they might throw a few jobs into someone's constituency and they get off with a pat on the head and a lollipop.
The EU thing has been going on a really long time. I believe that even after they were found to be in violation, they continued with business as usual for over a year while the EU postured with a bunch of empty threats culminating in the "daily fine" threat. Since then, MS has been given ANOTHER eight months or so to get their house in order. If they had done so at any point during that time (eg: after continuing their predatory and arrogant behaviour for an additional two years AFTER being found guilty) they would have STILL gotten their lollipop.
I think that fines are the only stick you've got to use on a corporation. What else would you suggest: throw all the employees and shareholders in jail or just give them a lollipop and ask them to play nice?
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Better: jail terms for shareholders. Why should the owners of the corporation (who choose the directors) be held to a lesser moral standard than other individuals?
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Use the fine money to fund a public reverse-engineering project for all the APIs and communications protocols. Nullify any patents held by Microsoft which would prevent competitors from re-implimenting the OS and/or bundled software.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the EU does not permit software patents, as on date. Any MS patents are null and void in the EU as it is.
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the European Patent Office (EPO) claims that they are not regulated by the EU. They say that they were formed before the EU (as we know it today) and therefore they only have to report to individual countries instead of reporting to the EU. And since these countries cannot agree on a common action against the EPO, then the EPO can keep on using their weird interpretation of the patent treaty: according to the EPO, software as such cannot be patented but it can be patented if that software is running on a computer.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
And thats exactly what this is all about.
They cant really force anybody to stop using microsofts products, and they cant force microsoft to completly stop selling their products.
So they gave microsoft some time to prepare documentation that would be available to competitors. For a fee. With no recommendation to give it away, or how much to charge for it. And to this today - microsoft has not yet complied, and are still working on documentation for an OS that was written a couple of years ago.
Every developer worth their money has pre-project documentation, code documentation, end user documentation (for things such as api's and libraries). This has been a standard in the industry for decades. And - most of windows is documented in such a way if said libraries and api's were ever intended to be used by someone out of microsoft. And yet - the others werent, as i seems.
The inner workings of windows and their internall protocols are a mystery even to them.
Thats the only thing that could justify getting a 300 person team for over a year of time.
AND NOT COMPLETING THE TASK!
This only says about the quality of the code - or the obfuscation that they used to actually throw competitors off track.
I remember when the ruling became a very public thing over here at slashdot. Everyone agreed that it was the only thing that the EC could do, and that decision was just.
And now that the fines accumulated to a spectacular (even for microsoft this is a big bag of money which they will have to explain to their shareholders) 1 billion USD, everyone is beggining to feel sorry for them ?!
Sorry - as far as i know they didnt comply, had well over a years time and are still arguing about their case.
I have no sympathy for them. Not that i ever did - but feel free to point out the weeks spots in my understanding of this case.
Disclamer: i am a linux user.
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
the king solomon route (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh, but there is an alternative punishment - something we can do to corporations that we can't do to people. Cut them in half!
However this raises an immediate question: How do you ensure that the resulting two (or more) entities don't just collude and price-fix their way along as if they were still whole?
It's easy to imagine - two big campuses in Redmond, one given the MS Office suite, one given the Windows codebase - each told by
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So that's... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Maybe the judges reckon that MS made much more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS with their anti-competitive practices...
2. Maybe they felt that the fine should be high enough to deter continued violation, but lower than MS's profits in the EU... thus MS would consider compliance the better policy?
3. Maybe the judges aren't so happy to let the Corporate Mr. Evil run unchecked in Europe?
Re:So that's... (Score:5, Insightful)
My god, did you really just say that? And you even got an "insightful" mod--that's just sad! Microsoft has billions and billions invested in Europe. They have money in European banks, they own property, etc. They don't have the option of refusing to pay! The European governments can, if they want, just take the money! Bam, done! Heck, a billion dollars probably wouldn't even put a noticable dent in their European assets.
And anyway, Microsoft isn't going to fight over what amounts to a slap on the wrist. At least, not if it looks like they're risking losing even more. Even with this fine, Europe is still an incredible, unbelievable source of profit to Microsoft. Collectively, the second largest economy in the world, IIRC. There's no way they're going risk all that money just for this tiny little fine that is more-or-less the equivalent, to them, of some change found under the cushions, to you and me.
Re:So that's... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it's the largest economy in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Europ
The European Union has the world's largest economy, slightly larger than that of the United States of America with a 2005 GDP of 12,865,602 million vs. 11,734,300 million (USD figures) (using nominal US Dollar GDP) according to the International Monetary Fund.
Re:So that's... (Score:3, Informative)
Non-payment is not an option if they'd like to continue to sell their products to the EU. Seeing as the EU has a population of about 490 million, I kind of doubt that they'd consider a fi
Re:So that's... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats A LOT of money (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thats A LOT of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Vista keeps getting delayed! (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder then! If it takes 300 engineers, several nights and days to document the protocols of an obsolete OS..... we should be surprised if Vista ships before 2010!
darn (Score:4, Funny)
guess bill can only buy 2 small countrys this year,
Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. And also to be fair, from what I have seen, MS has been bobbing and weaving like an aging boxer to avoid most of the spirit of the rulings. The commission gave them, up to now, 1.5 years to comply. And the company has been dragging its feet in every direction. This didn't come out of the blue.
3. If you think this is harsh, consider that an American judge had ordered to split the company up completely.
BTW, I am not for the commission completely (as I am not pro-EU, the EU tries to get into every aspect of European life which I abhor) but MS doesn't have to do business in Europe. I don't know if this will finally pass but it just has the balls to do what the US Justice Department was too corrupt (from up top) to finish.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and stupid grin aside, here is exactly how to go about that. [mugshots.org]
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
In order for the two first to work, the fine must be sufficient to influence your behaviour. If you earn a thousand dollars a week, obviously the risk of getting a 50 cent fine for some behaviour or other is unlikely to deter you much.
On this background, scaling fines by the income of the recipient makes perfect sense. True for individuals, even more so for companies. A $5000 fine could be sufficient to influence a tiny company, on MS it obviously would not even register.
If you did *not* scale the fines then you'd have two alternatives when it comes to companies. Either the fines are so high that any fine at all results in instant bankruptcy for all small and medium companies, or the fines are so low that they are completely ineffectual as tools for modifying large-company-behaviour.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because that is NOT what they are being fined for.
Microsoft was convicted of breaking the law, and the court levied NO punishment - I repeat *NO* punishment for that crinimal behaviour. The court merely ordered that they stop engaging in that criminal behavior, and ordered a remedy merely to stop the damage to the market from continuing. The remedy specifically being an order to permit a version of Windows with Media Player unbundled, and to document the protocols to permit competition in other software markets on an even footing. (Note that the US anti-trust conviction of Microsoft was purely remedy and carried no punative component either.)
So why is Microsoft being fined well over a billion dollars? Because they did something else illegal!
Microsoft is being fined for willful contempt of a lawful court order! The conviction and cort order was long ago. Microsoft deadline for compliance with the court order was over a year and a half ago! And like an overdue library book, Microsoft has been racking up a daily fine for their willfull disreguard with a lawful court order.
Microsoft has drawn out this battle for so long that Microsoft gets to reap the rewards of their illegal behavior, and any remedy to terminate that particular illegal behavior becomes null and void. By the time this fight ends, Windows Vista will be just about to hit the market. Any documentation for working with previous operating systems becomes pretty well moot. Microsoft is using an illegal delying tactic to defeat the court order - to defeat the court itself. And delaying and refusing to comply with a court order carries a very specific penalty at law. That illegal behavior carries a signifigant $ daily fine. And that fine is entirely under Microsoft's control. Microsoft has chosen day after day to continue violating the law. Microsoft has chosen day after day to increase the fine they have to pay. Microsoft could have gotten off with $ZERO fine had they complied a year and a half ago.
-
Why no comment? (Score:5, Funny)
Seconds earlier that night, said EC spokesman was was overheard in an Amsterdam cafe, "Dude! Can you believe it? $1.4 Billion. Pass that shit over here, some jackass American reporter is ringing my mobile."
300 engineers (Score:4, Informative)
300 engineers to document some protocols? I could believe 10, maybe 20 could get the job done in a few weeks. How on earth could 300 engineers work together on such a (excuse my ignorance/naivete) trivial job for two years? Hasn't this guy heard of The Mythical Man Month? MS aren't idiots; they've designed the process to fail. They deserve every cent of the fines.
Re:300 engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
protocols including CIFS, and tens of thousands of pages of documentation,
which are terribly inadequate given their culture. they were talking about
a spec-writing team of 50 to do part of that work in a 6 month period of
time. many of the other people involved were the engineers who did the
original implementations and are now the only source of information.
they dug themselves a really really big hole. getting out is basically
impossible.
What is an off the record fine? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad day for America (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sad day for America (Score:4, Informative)
that is a big no-no and they were fined the standard 10% of the annual global revenue.
10% global annual revenue hurts big time if you are a multinational company.
many other european companies have been fined in the same way.
Re:Sad day for America (Score:3, Interesting)
You in Europe you adhere to Europe rules. European country do or get find.
WHat makes an American company working in Europe think it does not have to adhere to our rules?
they screwed up, they must pay the price
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a fine. It's not meant to distribute the money in that particular market equally under all competitors. It's meant as a punishment for Microsoft.
And the idea that the EC is going to decide what software is going to be developed and by whom and how, gives me the creepers. If you know the EC's record on scientific funding, the thought of them funding software
Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not really fair to judge a business model when that's what you're putting it up against. That's like saying that a machine gun is inferior to a flintlock musket, if you make the start condition one where the musket is pressed to the head of the machine gunner -- it doesn't have to be superior in order to win, it just has to barely work.
Any business model that can even keep itself alive when in direct competition with a firm as aggressive as Microsoft would probably do very well in an actual free market.
the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe time to add a template for overseas too? since
lets add that up... (Score:3, Informative)
202 days
$507,020,000 USD
plus 2.51 each day til they are im compliance.
thatsa pretty big chunk o cash.
they expect to make 11.5 - 11.7 billion this year, losing 5% is pretty bad.
Back to the old calculator... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine backdated to 2005, not 2004 (Score:3, Informative)
Protect companies mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, my biguest personal grip with the law in capitalist countries at the moment is how disproportionaly harsher it is on individuals that it is on companies - for example, if an individual kills someone due to negligence he/she goes to prison, while if a company kills multiple people they get a fine.
Even more relevant to this situation is the disparity when both the individual and the company do something for which they are fined: the issue here is that, proportionaly to the annual income of the individual and the company, a fine with the same value usually is a much higher burden for an individual than for a company. Worse still, for equally harming crimes, companies often get lower fines than individuals since they have beter lawyers, beter connections and the law is (thanks to many years of lobbying) skewed to be harsher on the types of crimes done by individuals than one those done by companies even when both crimes do the same amount of harm.
So back to the fine on MS and to put things in perspective:
- MS had in the year of 2005 a net (thus after taxes) income of $12254 millions, a fine of 1.400 millions is thus 11,4% of their net income.
- For an individual making $150000 bruto per month, with a 30% flat income tax (thus $105000 net income), an equivalent fine (thus 11,4% of their yearly net income) would be $11970
Thus, Microsoft's fine is equivalent to a $11970 (in one year) fine for an individual with an well above average income.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine per day going forward as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not know what will change, but it's a situation that cannot stand - not to mention that if Microsoft simply coughts up the fine indefinatley it will be raised to an amount they cannot ignore as easily.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, really, what can you say about a company who seems to be unable to produce _usable_ technical documentation for their headline product?
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
It will never happen. Even if (which I doubt as they'll at least try to kill eons with negotiations) Bill has to write the check (and keep writing them daily until the EU is satisfied) there is no way in hell that M$ will just let the EU default to linux or the various bsd's.
As for the price per day, ISTR seeing someplace that the fine was chosen to match the e
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. I think you have it the wrong way round. The fact that Microsoft is an (illegally maintained) monopoly, is what *allows* them to sell an operating system for 300 - 400 instead of a more reasonable 50 - 100.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to clean your glasses. This is not a money grab. This is Microsoft CHOOSING to give away money.
Microsoft was convicted of breaking the law, and the fine and penaty was ZERO. NO FINE, NO PENALTY. This is like you break a storefront window, and the court orders you not to break any more windows and to clean up the broken glass all over the storefront and to replace the window you broke. The court requires you to stop breaking the law, and to remedy the damage you did. You (and Micrsoft) get the chance to away scott-free with NO PUNISHMENT for breaking the law.
But then you do something really stupid. You replace the window you broke, but you willfully act in contempt of court and refuse to sweep up the broken glass all over the sidewalk in front of the store. The court gives you a week to sweep up the broken glass, and still you refuse to comply. The court then levies a contempt of court fine of $X per day. And then for the next YEAR AND A HALF you still refuse to sweep up the broken glass. And you call it a "money grab" when you rack up over a year and a half of fines?
Microsoft was given ample tiome to comply. Microsoft CHOSE day after day to willfully act in contempt of a lawfull court order. Microsoft CHOSE to rack up a dailly fine. Microsoft basically CHOSE to give away money day after day. Microsoft could have gotten off scott-free with $ZERO fine.
they'd refuse to pay it
Are you STUPID? Do you seriously think that you can hop on a plane, set up shop doing business in some other country, that you can BREAK THE LAW in that country day after day, and that you could get away with simply refusing to pay court ordered fines?
No, you do not go into some country and dick around with the government like that. At first the courts are nice and simply ask you to pay the money you owe. If you are a moron and attempt to refuse to pay a lawful debt to the government, then the government simply orders the banks to seize and turn over the owed debt from any accounts. And the government can simply order customs to seize any imports/exports from the territory to pay the debt. And then the government can simply order the police to physically seize any physical assets and any and all buildings and land. And if you really piss off the government they can order the police to start physically arrest and imprison the individuals stupid enough to persist in disobeying the law and disobeying lawful court orders.
watch the uproar that would ensue when it became illegal to sell Windows in the EU
Oh, that one is my favorite part! LOLOL!
Let's assume that Microsoft somehow managed to empty all of the money from all EU bank accounts and had no future payments due for collection from EU companies, so that the courts could not simply order banks to hand over the money owed. And let's assume that Microsoft somehow magically owns no offices and owns no seizeable assets and property anywhere in the EU. And let's assume that all Microsoft employees manage to flee the countries and are unarrestable for noncompliance with the law. And let's assume that the courts in the US and Japan and the rest of the planet decline to honor debt collection in cooperation with the EU courts and decline to locally seize any bank accounts and assets.
Let's assume ALL of that. Let's assume that Microsoft could successfully play a game of "Nya nya nya you can't catch me!" with the EU legal system.
Then it gets REALLY fun! Because if Microsoft dissess the entire EU court system and cuts off all contact with the EU legal system, then GUESS WHAT! Then Microsoft cannot avail themselves of benefits and protections of the EU court system. The EU courts can refuse to accept any cases from Microsoft attempting to sue for enforcement of copyright or patent or trademark infringment. The EU courts can effectively null and void all of Microsoft's copyrights and patents and trademarks. All of Microsoft's software would effectively become public domain.
So rather than "illegal to sell Windows in the EU", in fact it could ultimately become perfectly legal for anyone and everyone to copy and modify and sell any and all Microsoft software at will.
-
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't think in terms of their cash in hand or flow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft doesn't pay anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how monopoly pricing works; that's how a perfectly competitive market works. In a perfectly competitive market, adding to the costs increases the price because the price is driven down to the cost (the supply curve). In a monopoly, adding to the costs has zero effect, because price is determined by *demand*. I.e. they sell the OS for the most that they can get already. If they could sell it for more, they already would.
With monopolies, prices are chosen because an increase in price reduces the quantity of sales such that total revenue drops. Similarly, a decrease in price reduces revenue by more than the increased quantity of sales, so that total revenue drops. This fine does not affect that calculation in any way. Therefore, for them to increase prices, they would either have to accept lower revenue or they would have had to have been underpricing their product. I.e. charging less than the market would bear.
Re:good for the EU (Score:5, Informative)
[Offtopic]Congrats to Italy for Barrying Germany 'Squadra Azzurra' Style! I hope you guys lift the cup in the end![/offtopic]
Re:good for the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that a corporation is anything more than a government without laws, representation or even a theoretical interest in human life and dignity, you are fooling yourself.
Re:good for the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think a goverment is anything more than a corporation with guns, you're fooling yourself.
All the more reason to keep the corps and the gov against each other since when gang up together against us it's the worst of both worlds.
Re:EU? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not going to happen. (Score:4, Interesting)
Contemplating their business practices merely inspires loathing.
Re:The Future (thought experiment) (Score:3, Informative)
Apart from the fact that Debian would include several media players and browsers, none of which were produced by themselves and would probably be delighted to include others of sufficient quality. So the monopoly abuse question (which is what the MS issue is all about) would never arise and your example is total bollocks.
Also the fact that anyone is free to take the debian source, make a totally compatable distro and include whatever media players etc. that they like (which can't be don
Re:Well great (Score:3, Funny)