EU to pursue antitrust case, despite Windows 7 E

[PhreePhly]

Everybody knows it's (in part) because Microsoft is an American company. I think it's become pretty obvious that some of these EU bureaucrats have a deep-seated anti-Americanism. Just look at the ridiculous fine they threw on Microsoft--something exponentially greater than anything they've ever done to a European company. Or take a look at how they're now going after Intel, another American company, yet don't mind at all the pan-EU corporations like Airbus having full monopolies across the continent.

I don't think that's true. The EU Commission just hit a number of elevator manufacturers, mostly European companies, with some pretty hefty fines for running a cartel. Siemens just go slapped with a huge fine about 6 months ago.

Airbus is government sanctioned consortium of individual manufacturers that form the company. Because this is a government approved monopoly, it is different. This is like the cable franchises in the US or phone franchises. This is why people live in Verizon areas or AT&T areas. These were government approved monopolies.

MS has a unique position in the business world. In history, I don't believe that any company has ever had as large a market share as MS has. Think about it, world wide, Windows is on approximately 97% of computers. That's huge, and by doing just small things, MS can change the computer software landscape completely. They won't, because it doesn't make financial sense, but they could, so they are watched carefully.

I believe that changes in the market are slowly making MS less of a threat than they were 10 years ago. Firefox made it pretty clear that a competing browser can change the landscape. It's a bit mute, as these are free products, but the MS stranglehold was broken.

Linux has provided an alternative OS, and while it is no where as ubiquitious as Windows, it does provide a competion. OSX is growing, faster than Windows according to Apple, so there is viable competition forming against MS. Some of this is due to actions by anti-monopoly groups like the EU commission, but I believe it is just a natural progression of competition. The PC world is too open, it is too easy to build a computer and you don't need MS for anything.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

It's hard to get this isn't it?

There is no 'choice'.

In the EU the laws of the EU prevail, not those of USA and certainly not those of a company who has been judged to be anti-competitve. They didn't get fined for being nice guys.

The EU DECIDES what THEY accept as solution. If MS refuses to comply with a direct order from the EU they'll find themselves forking out quite higher fines then the last time.

According to EU laws they have to right to impose up to 10% of a company's profits. They've come off lightely last time around.

Of course there is choice. If the EU Commission continues in these actions, MS may be able to make a financial case to its shareholders that doing business within the jurisdiction of the EU is becoming detrimental to the business climate.

Also, MS will go through the appeals process, which will take time. It will be interesting to see what happens. Never in the EU history has a company been forced to include a competitors product. This would be precedent setting and quite scary for other companies in the EU.

You seem to think the EU commission can do anything it wants. That is not the case. It must still work from the framework of rules and regulations agreed upon by the founding nations that created the EU. Remember, MS was slapped for being anti-competative by bundling the browser. The just fixed that by unbundling the browser. The Commission will have a hard time making a case that MS is once again abusing their position.

PhreePhly

 

[petrossa]

Airbus is government sanctioned consortium of individual manufacturers that form the company. Because this is a government approved monopoly, it is different.
PhreePhly

At what they are a monopoly? Making airplanes? It is a consortium, just like ESA is and many other pan-european consortia.

But they have no monopoly at anything, or has Boeing ceased to exist?
Anyone is free to choose which airplane to buy in Europe.

For the rest you're quite right. Just like they just broke cartel agreements for international cellphone calls. They capped it at 36 eurocents a minute (used to be sometimes more the 1 euro a minute).
Same like they'll instruct MS to clean up its act.

 

[PhreePhly]

At what they are a monopoly? Making airplanes? It is a consortium, just like ESA is and many other pan-european consortia.

But they have no monopoly at anything, or has Boeing ceased to exist?
Anyone is free to choose which airplane to buy in Europe.

For the rest you're quite right. Just like they just broke cartel agreements for international cellphone calls. They capped it at 36 eurocents a minute (used to be sometimes more the 1 euro a minute).
Same like they'll instruct MS to clean up its act.

The point is, there is no other EU manufacturer of Commercial Airliners. In order to be competative with Boeing, the Airbus consortium is allowed to exists. This consortium is anti-competative in the fact that it would be almost impossible for a competing firm to form in the EU.

Also, you keep forgetting the the ONLY reason MS was found to be anti-competative was their bundling of apps, specifically the browser and the media player. That's why they were forced to sell a N version, which included no Media Player (boy, that was the EU's high point, that really fixed MS. Users were scrambling to get the Media Playerless version)

Now, MS is cleaning up it's act by not including the browser.

PhreePhly

 

[petrossa]

The Commission will have a hard time making a case that MS is once again abusing their position.
PhreePhly

That's not necessary Phree. The case has been made and accepted.
The membercountries have as much say in the matter as a politician in a court of law (none), because it's all according to the rules.

The EU thinks this
Rapid - Press Releases - EUROPA

And MS telling their shareholders they'll drop half of their revenues because they want to be anti-competitive is a ludicrous proposition and will get the board of directors out on their ass in no time at all.

 

[Dwarf]

The membercountries have as much say in the matter as a politician in a court of law (none), because it's all according to the rules.

And here is the rub. If something is found which is not according to the rules, then the rules are changed so that it is.

One wonders if the EU are ever going to be completely satisfied with MS. I think not because there are still applications included in Windows for which there are alternatives available (e.g. Paint, Notepad, etc). I can see the situation where, when the EU is finally happy about the issue of MS and IE, that they move on to one of the other included applications.

Unfortunately, the only conclusion that I can gleam from all of this is that the EU has a vendetta against MS. It seems to me that, no matter what MS do in trying to comply with the EU, they (the EU) are never going to be satisfied.
:mad2::mad2::mad2:

 

[PhreePhly]

That's not necessary Phree. The case has been made and accepted.
The membercountries have as much say in the matter as a politician in a court of law (none), because it's all according to the rules.

The EU thinks this
Rapid - Press Releases - EUROPA

And MS telling their shareholders they'll drop half of their revenues because they want to be anti-competitive is a ludicrous proposition and will get the board of directors out on their ass in no time at all.

That release says nothing. They agree with the oems adding the browser, but are concerned about retail. They had "suggested" a ballot system in January. MS came up with a solution that the EU wasn't expecting. No where does it state that MS had to provide a ballot system. Also, MS always has the option to appeal the commissions ruling, and if forced to include competitors browsers, they will most definitely appeal.

PhreePhly

 

[petrossa]

The point is, there is no other EU manufacturer of Commercial Airliners.
PhreePhly

It's not an EU manufacturer, it's consortium of several industries who've combined their efforts internationally. The totality of industries needed to build commercial airliners just doesn't exist in a single country.

Before Airbus there was the Concorde, a partnership between industries in the UK & France. All what makes it different is that their respective countries have given permission to those industries to form a pan-european manufacturer.

The EU has nothing to do with it.

In other responses:

The EU is a bureaucratic monolith. It has no 'feelings' towards MS or anyone else regardless where their enterprise is registered. They don't 'like' Opera, or Realplayer.

There are rules, functionaries apply the rules. If you break the rules you are admonished. It's very mechanical.

The don't fine because they need the money, the fines levied don't even come up in the rounding of the budget so small is their part.

 

[PhreePhly]

It's not an EU manufacturer, it's consortium of several industries who've combined their efforts internationally. The totality of industries needed to build commercial airliners just doesn't exist in a single country.

Before Airbus there was the Concorde, a partnership between industries in the UK & France. All what makes it different is that their respective countries have given permission to those industries to form a pan-european manufacturer.

The EU has nothing to do with it.

In other responses:

The EU is a bureaucratic monolith. It has no 'feelings' towards MS or anyone else regardless where their enterprise is registered. They don't 'like' Opera, or Realplayer.

There are rules, functionaries apply the rules. If you break the rules you are admonished. It's very mechanical.

The don't fine because they need the money, the fines levied don't even come up in the rounding of the budget so small is their part.

By allowing this consortium, the EU has in effect, made it impossible for any other manufacturer to get into the commercial airliner manufacturing. This is not necessarily bad, it is a smart move to keep Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and McDonnell-Douglas (now part of Boeing) in check and maintain a european aircraft company.

Had Airbus not been formed, there would most likely not be a european aircraft manufacturer in the commercial airliner side and Boeing would have had the monopoly. Granted, the EU, as it exists today, wasn't around when Airbus was formed so it had no say in the creation of the consortium, but I wonder if they would have allowed it for economic purposes against the US aircraft builders, even though it is anti-competative.

As far as the EU response to MS:

How hard is this to understand? MS was punished for anti-competative practices based upon bundling. That was the "rule" they broke. They are now going to fix that by operating within that "rule" and not bundling the browser. While the EU may not have anticipated this response, the response is, however, within the rules. The EU commission is still required to operate within its own rules. If they decide to change that rule, there is a process they must follow.

The point being this is not done, and while the EU may turn around and claim that what MS is doing now is anti-competative, that will require a new hearing, as MS will most certainly appeal, which is part of the rules and regulation that even the "mighty EU Commission" must follow.

PhreePhly

 

[z3r010]

Microsoft could quite easily put an end to this saga by re-branding "IE" to "NO" as No is something that is not recognized by the dictators in Brussels and would just be ignored.

 

[Slimy]

Microsoft could quite easily put an end to this saga by re-branding "IE" to "NO" as No is something that is not recognized by the dictators in Brussels and would just be ignored.

:roflmao:

 

[petrossa]

Granted, the EU, as it exists today, wasn't around when Airbus was formed so it had no say in the creation of the consortium, but I wonder if they would have allowed it for economic purposes against the US aircraft builders, even though it is anti-competative.

The EU committee against anti-competitive behavior is around now. They have the duty to guard European consumers against greedy manufacturers. Airbus is not excluded from this control, before or after the fact. There is no need for anyone to complain, they have the obligation to be pro-active. Still anyone who has a valid case that Airbus is in some way anti-competitive can lodge a complaint with the committee.

There is a vast list of illegal European price-fixers, trusts and whatnot which have been already taken care of during the years past. They don't make the frontpages as MS is doing, because they decided to not fight the inevitable.

The point which they (and you) don't seem to get is that MS is obligated to come with a solution that will make MS less anti-competitive according to the rules laid down by the committee.

The committee did (incredible but true) learn their lesson from MS's subterfuges with the WMP case.

In their press statement they allude to this. If you read the burocratspeak well, this is what is what is says:

You f**ked us once, you won't f**k us twice. We will give you in due course a remedy you will obligated to follow or we hold you in breach of an European directive.

This needs no new case. Appeals will just serve to spend cash to no real purpose, as the mills of burocrazy are in motion. If i were a shareholder i'd tell the board to quit playing silly games, those days are past. Adapt or get royally *****ed.

 

[PhreePhly]

The EU committee against anti-competitive behavior is around now. They have the duty to guard European consumers against greedy manufacturers. Airbus is not excluded from this control, before or after the fact. There is no need for anyone to complain, they have the obligation to be pro-active. Still anyone who has a valid case that Airbus is in some way anti-competitive can lodge a complaint with the committee.

There is a vast list of illegal European price-fixers, trusts and whatnot which have been already taken care of during the years past. They don't make the frontpages as MS is doing, because they decided to not fight the inevitable.

The point which they (and you) don't seem to get is that MS is obligated to come with a solution that will make MS less anti-competitive according to the rules laid down by the committee.

The committee did (incredible but true) learn their lesson from MS's subterfuges with the WMP case.

In their press statement they allude to this. If you read the burocratspeak well, this is what is what is says:

You f**ked us once, you won't f**k us twice. We will give you in due course a remedy you will obligated to follow or we hold you in breach of an European directive.

This needs no new case. Appeals will just serve to spend cash to no real purpose, as the mills of burocrazy are in motion. If i were a shareholder i'd tell the board to quit playing silly games, those days are past. Adapt or get royally *****ed.

Why bother adapting, 'cause thy're going to get f*cked anyway. This is the problem. By any logical analysis, MS's decision is the proper one. They were hit with bundling charges, so they are now unbundling. That is about as uncompetative as you can get. The EU decides to f*ck them anyway. This is the problem and why MS won't give in without a fight. This is absolutely a new case. MS is following the letter of the ruling and the EU is changing its tune. At this point there needs to be a new ruling to explain how unbundling is anti-competative.

Oh, and MS did not screw them over with the WMP solution. That was all EU. That was complete stupidity on their part. It goes to show out of touch they are with reality. To think that a unbundled version would sell better. Wow, impressive bunch of bureaucrats they are.

Phree

 

[petrossa]

They were hit with bundling charges, so they are now unbundling.
Phree

They were adjudged to be in violation of abusing their position as a virtual monopolist, amongst other choses by making IE an integral part of their OS. Since 3rd party softwaremakers are thereby limited in their options (they can't integrate their software same way and are as such by definition less capable) they were told to do someything about it.

Just removing a few exe's and dll's is not a solution. IE = Explorer with an HTML engine. Taking the I out of IE is just trying to mess around with an annoyed hungry grizzly with cubs. I guess MS slightly overplayed their hand.

But they sure are a bunch of burocrats, don't get me wrong i am far from defending, i am just explaining the European Committee's way of doing things.

Reading other likewise posts i realised that practically all Americans have no clue how the EU works.

The elected european parliament makes laws, the appointed european committees check if they are uphold and dishes out the dirt, the european court is then the last resort against a decision made by the committee in question.

Once a EU committee has decided that someone (this can be a private enterprise but also a membercountries government) breaks a European law or directive they serve the guilty party with a remedy/punishment.

France has received multiple fines for not complying with the EU directive that a national budget has no more then 3% deficit annualy for example.
(they never paid but still)

This serving can be appealed, which MS tried last around. As can this one. But appeal doesn't mean the decision can't be enforced, this is up to the committee to grant a stay or not.

When the EU anti-competition directives were put in place they were meant to prevent pricefixing, marketcornering and such in the EU.

The burocrats were well aware that court cases can stall for ages, so they made decisions enforceable per direct. All the court can do is decide afterwards it was unjust and then the measure taken will be retroactively undone.

 

[PhreePhly]

They were adjudged to be in violation of abusing their position as a virtual monopolist, amongst other choses by making IE an integral part of their OS. Since 3rd party softwaremakers are thereby limited in their options (they can't integrate their software same way and are as such by definition less capable) they were told to do someything about it.

Just removing a few exe's and dll's is not a solution. IE = Explorer with an HTML engine. Taking the I out of IE is just trying to mess around with an annoyed hungry grizzly with cubs. I guess MS slightly overplayed their hand.

The problem is the EU never made clear the difference. MS stated that HTML rendering is used in many parts of Windows as a component part. It was an efficient method for data presentation. The problem was that there was nothing in the ruling that stated MS needed to remove the engine. They just needed to remove the IE application frontend.

PhreePhly

 

[petrossa]

The problem is the EU never made clear the difference. MS stated that HTML rendering is used in many parts of Windows as a component part. It was an efficient method for data presentation. The problem was that there was nothing in the ruling that stated MS needed to remove the engine. They just needed to remove the IE application frontend.

PhreePhly

Yes but that's MS's fault for not giving enough access to it's internal working. By trying to outsmart over the years the competition and USA's anti-trust they finagled themselves in a corner.

By moving around components to 'comply' with the USA requirements, they in fact made the whole mess even less transparent so that by now i doubt that there exists anyone at MS who fully understands where I ends and E begins.

So stuck between a very hard place and a much harder place they had no real option but to just removing iexplorer.exe.

Which is really by consequence a real 'in your face' gesture not unlike a frustrated child who throws his favourite toy to bits because he is punished.

 

[PhreePhly]

...

Which is really by consequence a real 'in your face' gesture not unlike a frustrated child who throws his favourite toy to bits because he is punished.

Which is a good description of the EU's behavior. They're like Paris Hilton complaining like unfair treatment in gossip magazines. Think they might bring some of the complaints on themselves?

PhreePhly

 

[petrossa]

Like i said: Everybody with a valid complaint that a company operating within the EU breaks the rules as set down in the EU laws can address himself to the EU committee concerned.

If someone has proof that Airbus is in breach of the EU anti-competition directives they should lodge a complaint.

Obviously the EU committee cannot engage itself with WTO rules, as they are not EU rules. It's not their jurisdiction.

If a nation finds that Airbus (or whomever) is in breach of the WTO rules they should address themselves to the WTO.
After that it's up to the WTO to takes care of that situation.

If they don't, well they don't.

Furthermore, all fines levied by the EU are distributed amongst the membership countries. They don't serve the EU budget itself.

Don't take it personal, it's just how things work. There's always a bigger bully around the corner......

 

[petrossa]

Which is a good description of the EU's behavior. They're like Paris Hilton complaining like unfair treatment in gossip magazines. Think they might bring some of the complaints on themselves?

PhreePhly

The sh*tty part is the EU can behave like that because they are bigger. MS can't because they are smaller.

 

[EtHANBB]

I don't know why EU is doing this ... IT'S DISCRIMINATION!

Why they are not forcing Apple to remove Safari from Mac OS
and also remove firefox & konqueror from Linux distributions?

Stupid question, or not? :huh:

Ahh... What I Hear... They are biased against MS!

-------------------
EtHAN