EU Fines Microsoft $731M

RedSh1rt said:
The fact they have to do this is daft but they broke the agreement and could have been fined up to 10% of their annual revenue (which is a lot more than what they have been fined).

It's Microsoft's fault, it's not like this is a new thing the EU does. Why risk getting fined by removing it in the first place?!

Maybe next time they settle on some terms they will stick to them. 'Technical error' just doesn't fly I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

An agreement made when facing the barrel of a gun is not a valid agreement.
 
player-x said:
Its not the EU that is wrong or greedy, its MS that is just to stupid for words, and breaking the law AGAIN!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

This kind of logic is fucking hilarious. I have just a "few years" of software development experience under my belt. I will tell you think more than likely what happened. Simply put it was disabled while they were creating SP1 in order to work on a universal data set for the OS. Then when they were buttoning it back up it just didn't get turned back on. No "EVIL" intended.

No matter what, the law is asinine. They cannot prove damages. They can't even come close. It was a money grab plain and simple under the guise of "for the people"; same logic as "for the children". And no, in the real world among real companies we don't fine/sue over shit like this. We point to the contract and say "option X is missing for some reason" and they fix it. If they don't fix it then we get pissy. This is a case of "option X is missing so get pissy like a little bitch".

Love all these perfect people on this forum who make $100k+ and only bang tens. Maybe you should join Genmay. :p
 
Trepidati0n said:
Simply put it was disabled while they were creating SP1 in order to work on a universal data set for the OS. Then when they were buttoning it back up it just didn't get turned back on. No "EVIL" intended.
Click to expand...

I guess Microsoft's selective memory serves them well... if you consider a -560 million income as positive :D

It could've been much worse, though. Up to 10% of their annual revenue. Imagine the money baths at EC HQ :p
 
LeninGHOLA said:
A contract? That's like me telling you I'm going to punch you in the throat if you don't change the TV channel.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing MS to enter the EU market. They could always just not do business there and let someone else do it. Companies jump thru hoops all the time if they feel the business is worth it...
 
BettiePage said:
No one is forcing MS to enter the EU market. They could always just not do business there and let someone else do it. Companies jump thru hoops all the time if they feel the business is worth it...
Click to expand...


I'm sure that would be great for the EU economy and infrastructure. It's good to see mafia tactics employed by large government bodies.
 
I see this being bad and opening the door to other lawsuits. You can now sue apple for only having safari on mac's and iphones, Google for just having browser on android and chrome on chrome books. Making laws in your favor is the new cash cow.
 
Wait until the EU finds out that MS has included MS Paint in Windows for decades. That should be good for more "pathetically non-innovative EU economy" fines.
 
Oh man, I can't wait until EC fines Apple for failing to put USB as their connector as they should.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I don't know why so many people can't grasp how to
Microsoft didn't offer links to competing products, that's all.
Click to expand...
If your market share is around that of MS, different rules apply, because on the desktop MS is close to being a monopolist.

In the past the US also had strict rules anti monopoly rules, but over the years they all bin eaten way by the to close cooperation between big business and politicians in Washington.

It's not illegal for any other company unless it is Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Many EU companies get fined also for breaking the rules, they are just not as stupid in doing it as MS is, so there fines are lower, it just Microsoft's stupidity is in a class of its own.

They should never have been forced to in the first place.
Click to expand...
Different markets different rules, if MS dose not wane follow them, they have to choices, pay the fines, or leave the EU!

Most people have Google as their homepage. If you can't figure out how to get Chrome from there it's a personal issue.
Click to expand...
The ballot cost MS noting, but forces people to think before making a choice, bundling IE with Windows is also a form of sale that illegal, bundling IE (and Bing) to windows, if your market share is as high as that of Windows, that becomes illegal.

It would be fine if MS have IE on there website, as long as it dose not promote it in Windows, or the alternative MS and the EU negotiated was the use of the browser ballot screen.

And what did MS do after the first update to the OS?

They "accidentally" deleted the browser ballot screen, and thats why they got fined AGAIN!
 
player-x said:
They "accidentally" deleted the browser ballot screen, and thats why they got fined AGAIN!
Click to expand...
No. What happened is that due to a problem in Win7 SP1, *some* (16 million) users over a period of 13 months did not see the browser ballot. The vast majority did see the browser ballot.

The EU fine amounts to around US$50 per copy of Windows for those 16 million affected users.

The problem with the EC is that it's a kangaroo court. There is no jury and no real defense is allowed. The commission doesn't seem to understand basic concepts like basic expected features in an OS. It is all the following: prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Once the EC makes its charges (often based on ad hoc quasi-legal decisions), you're screwed. The outrage also comes from the amounts fined which for US companies are way out of proportion to the offense. The EC sees itself as a world competitive court, far overreaching the portion of business done in the EU. And all the while the EC completely ignores its own EU monopolies, often funded by taxpayers, and no requirement to pay back the loans (cough, Airbus, cough). It's a complete joke to call that justice. It's primarily punitive to US companies.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I'm sure that would be great for the EU economy and infrastructure. It's good to see mafia tactics employed by large government bodies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure MS doesn't do it out of love for the EU economy and infrastructure.
 
It's simple. Microsoft failed to comply, so they have to be fined. Same thing everywhere. And the fine is just 10% of what it could have been. If a European company did the same in the US, you Americans would all be calling for a fine...

Basically, I don't give a damn. I use Chrome :D
 
Jadawin said:
It's simple. Microsoft failed to comply, so they have to be fined. Same thing everywhere. And the fine is just 10% of what it could have been. If a European company did the same in the US, you Americans would all be calling for a fine...

Basically, I don't give a damn. I use Chrome :D
Click to expand...

You're saying they could have been fined $7,310,000,000?!? and that isn't a huge red flag? It wouldn't be an issue in the US because it already isn't an issue in the US.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You're saying they could have been fined $7,310,000,000?!? and that isn't a huge red flag? It wouldn't be an issue in the US because it already isn't an issue in the US.
Click to expand...

slashdot-reader said:
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords. Apparently laundering money for terrorists and drug lords is only 2.5 (roughly) times as bad as not complying with an EU court settlement.
Click to expand...

Funny that /. has a more meaningful discussion than [H] on the topic.
 
The users there had a choice all along, don't want IE then don't buy a Windows based PC, pretty fucking simple. Forcing a company to advertise for the competition is just asinine no matter how you look at it.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I'm sure that would be great for the EU economy and infrastructure. It's good to see mafia tactics employed by large government bodies.
Click to expand...

US Gov also requires companies that do business with them to comply with certain rules/conditions. We have cities with rules on the books that say companies must offer gay couples same benefits etc... or no City contracts.

US Companies bends over backwards to the Chinese Government so they can do business in China.

End of the day, MS agreed to do certain things. They broke that agreement so they are getting fined. If MS doesnt like it, they can always pack up their marbles and go play with someone else.

MS could of avoided this if they just stuck to their agreement. Your telling me MS doesnt have lawyers to do due diligence to make sure their product was in compliance?
 
slashdot-reader said:
Mean while in america we fine 1.92 billion HSBC for laundering money for terrorists and drug lords. Apparently laundering money for terrorists and drug lords is only 2.5 (roughly) times as bad as not complying with an EU court settlement.
Click to expand...
No it means as a big company, you have to work with terrorist before you get fined, if your a little guy of course that just works hard you will get stepped on
 
BettiePage said:
US Gov also requires companies that do business with them to comply with certain rules/conditions. We have cities with rules on the books that say companies must offer gay couples same benefits etc... or no City contracts.

US Companies bends over backwards to the Chinese Government so they can do business in China.

End of the day, MS agreed to do certain things. They broke that agreement so they are getting fined. If MS doesnt like it, they can always pack up their marbles and go play with someone else.

MS could of avoided this if they just stuck to their agreement. Your telling me MS doesnt have lawyers to do due diligence to make sure their product was in compliance?
Click to expand...

I'm telling you the EC is an extortion racket, the browser anti-trust case should be overturned and used as an example of how not to pursue anti-trust claims. MS agreed to those terms because they were forced to, not because it was logical or moral. No other company is forced to advertise for their competition. The EC has set a dangerous precedent and uses tactics no different that the mafia.
 
Jadawin said:
If a European company did the same in the US, you Americans would all be calling for a fine...
Click to expand...
That comment is funny. The US FTC and EC have very different records and philosophies on competition. I won't argue that more companies should be held to higher standards in the US via FTC action, but situations like this clearly explain the massive divide between the US and EU in technology. One is conducive to letting the market choose, and one attempts to even out all competition by punishing success in the market, for any reasons that happens.

It is not illegal to have a monopoly in the US. The EU's standard is much lower, as "dominance" is both fuzzy and quite flexible and can be used as a wedge on very weak cases, like the pearl clutching over including a second rate media player or web browser with the OS as virtually every other OS does.
 
GotNoRice said:
It's not a "difficult decision" for a European or Asian court to fine American companies.
Click to expand...

But they did do "bad stuff" after agreeing not to. If you sign a silly agreement that you wont wear socks anymore, and then you are caught wearing socks, who's fault is that? :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
But they did do "bad stuff" after agreeing not to. If you sign a silly agreement that you wont wear socks anymore, and then you are caught wearing socks, who's fault is that? :p
Click to expand...

My point was that if it was a European company that was being fined by a European court, you would almost certainly see less fines.

It's always easier to take money from someone else.
 
DeathPrincess said:
But they did do "bad stuff" after agreeing not to. If you sign a silly agreement that you wont wear socks anymore, and then you are caught wearing socks, who's fault is that? :p
Click to expand...

More like; you give away free socks with every sale of a business suit and are forced to include ads for the competitions free socks, even though the competition doesn't sell suits. You get caught not advertising other people's free socks and EC fines you close to a billion dollars.
 
GotNoRice said:
My point was that if it was a European company that was being fined by a European court, you would almost certainly see less fines.

It's always easier to take money from someone else.
Click to expand...
US companies think they can behave or do business the same way as in the US, sorry but we have different rules here, and if you don't follow them you get a fine and if you still wont follow them the fine go's up.

How would that be any different if a EU company keeps braking US rules?

Because if i would do business in the US, would you aspect me to follow US the law?

To bad for US companies we got we got real strict competition rules, and actual one of the few things i like about the EU.


And you only bitch about the fines here given to US company's!

Just a example, Heineken got a 219m euro EU fine for price fixing in The Netherlands, population 16m!

If you would calculate that for the hole of the EU then that would be a 6.5b euro fine.
http://www.fastmoving.co.za/news-archive/supplier-news/fine-makes-heineken-profits-go-flat

Not to be rude but US company's must learn that doing business in the EU is not the same as doing business in the US, different market different rules.

And we have a government that actual try's to protect it citizens in stead op protecting company's.
(still failing very often do, but that go's for all government ;-)

Its a different philosophy from the US model, and not saying per definition that our system is better then the US, but pleas just respect our way of life just as we try to do yours.

And do you really wane place a bet on how got the most crocked politicians, the EU or the US? (i wouldn't)
 
Your rules suck. The EC would fine a multibillion company out of business based on arbitrary rules they arbitrarily enforce. There was no trust, and you certainly didn't bust one. Price fixing and money laundering are completely different legal discussions unrelated to this topic. The EC never proved damages, nor did they try.
 
player-x said:
US companies think they can behave or do business the same way as in the US, sorry but we have different rules here, and if you don't follow them you get a fine and if you still wont follow them the fine go's up.

How would that be any different if a EU company keeps braking US rules?

Because if i would do business in the US, would you aspect me to follow US the law?

To bad for US companies we got we got real strict competition rules, and actual one of the few things i like about the EU.


And you only bitch about the fines here given to US company's!

Just a example, Heineken got a 219m euro EU fine for price fixing in The Netherlands, population 16m!

If you would calculate that for the hole of the EU then that would be a 6.5b euro fine.
http://www.fastmoving.co.za/news-archive/supplier-news/fine-makes-heineken-profits-go-flat

Not to be rude but US company's must learn that doing business in the EU is not the same as doing business in the US, different market different rules.

And we have a government that actual try's to protect it citizens in stead op protecting company's.
(still failing very often do, but that go's for all government ;-)

Its a different philosophy from the US model, and not saying per definition that our system is better then the US, but pleas just respect our way of life just as we try to do yours.

And do you really wane place a bet on how got the most crocked politicians, the EU or the US? (i wouldn't)
Click to expand...

Defensive much? :p

It isn't just the EU, lots of countries are getting in on the action:

Mexico:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1731267

China:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1736534

Yes, I only care about fines against the US, because that is where I live. Not sure why I would care about a fine between two countries that have nothing to do with me.

Feel free to provide any examples where EU companies have been sued by US courts for even a fraction of the near-billion dollar judgments against Microsoft.

I still don't understand how Microsoft including Internet Explorer with windows is a bad thing in any way. Did the EU also sue Apple for including Safari with Mac OS X? How about the chromium browsers that come pre-installed on every Android phone? What about all the in-your-face chrome advertisements on every Google service? I don't see Google or Apple offering browser selection screens on Android, iOS, or MacOSX :rolleyes:

Can you honestly say with a straight face that that isn't a double standard?

As far as US politicians go, I would say more are incompetent than corrupt, but it sounds like you have some pretty entrenched negative opinions about the US.
 
The obvious problem here is that Mozilla brought the case to EU and they didn't take it when Opera bought it to the EU they approved of it google and monzilla later to back it.
 
Thing is. humericans think their laws apply everywhere in the world, but local laws don't mean shit because they suck. Admit it :D
 
Oops broken link and no edit button! >_<

Brewer price fixing fines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/18/7

Europe Fines Electronics Makers $1.92 Billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/b...anies-for-picture-tube-price-fixing.html?_r=0
EU company Philips gets highest fine with 313billion euros

Just the first to examples i found after MS.

And the problem is two fold!
  • You don't see anything about those companies getting fined in the US, as its non-news.
  • And if any other companies get cough doing something wrong, they don't start ignoring the rule's any further.

Both Intel and Google went to the EU to solve there problems, ware MS just tried to fight the EU on every front.


I can see Balmer steaming true his office, screaming, how the F*** do those F**ng EU F***rs think they are, telling us how to behave on there market!

Looking like this!
StevieB.jpg


Yeah fighting the law always pays off !!!
full.png
 
dgz said:
Thing is. humericans think their laws apply everywhere in the world, but local laws don't mean shit because they suck. Admit it :D
Click to expand...

You're just mad my sock anaology was the only analogy in this thread that could be considered correct.

I'm all for anti competetive practices being punished, but not advertising for the competition isn't anti competetive by any stretch of the imagination. This is clearly bullying.

I realize Europeans typically dislike Americans, but sometimes you just have to do what is right.
 
player-x said:
I can see Balmer steaming true his office, screaming, how the F*** do those F**ng EU F***rs think they are, telling us how to behave on there market!

Looking like this!
StevieB.jpg


Yeah fighting the law always pays off !!!
full.png
Click to expand...

Your posts are starting to read like a tabloid opinion piece. It's obvious you have an axe to grind when it comes to Microsoft.

Maybe Europe would be better if everyone used Linux? :p
 
player-x said:
Oops broken link and no edit button! >_<

Brewer price fixing fines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/18/7

Europe Fines Electronics Makers $1.92 Billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/b...anies-for-picture-tube-price-fixing.html?_r=0
EU company Philips gets highest fine with 313billion euros

Just the first to examples i found after MS.

And the problem is two fold!
  • You don't see anything about those companies getting fined in the US, as its non-news.
  • And if any other companies get cough doing something wrong, they don't start ignoring the rule's any further.

Both Intel and Google went to the EU to solve there problems, ware MS just tried to fight the EU on every front.


I can see Balmer steaming true his office, screaming, how the F*** do those F**ng EU F***rs think they are, telling us how to behave on there market!

Looking like this!


Yeah fighting the law always pays off !!!
full.png
Click to expand...

Again, price fixing is clearly illegal and irrelevant to this topic. No other company is facing the same fines or the same legal issues as Microsoft is in the EU, yet many companies engage in the same (perfectly legal and moral) business practices.
 
player-x said:
Oops broken link and no edit button! >_<

Brewer price fixing fines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/18/7

Europe Fines Electronics Makers $1.92 Billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/b...anies-for-picture-tube-price-fixing.html?_r=0
EU company Philips gets highest fine with 313billion euros

Just the first to examples i found after MS.

And the problem is two fold!
  • You don't see anything about those companies getting fined in the US, as its non-news.
  • And if any other companies get cough doing something wrong, they don't start ignoring the rule's any further.

Both Intel and Google went to the EU to solve there problems, ware MS just tried to fight the EU on every front.


I can see Balmer steaming true his office, screaming, how the F*** do those F**ng EU F***rs think they are, telling us how to behave on there market!

Looking like this!
http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item21718/StevieB.jpg[IMG]

Yeah fighting the law always pays off !!! [img]http://tweakers.net/ext/f/TR6v3c7nNc0fVt66jCmukpdU/full.png[img][/QUOTE]Uhmmm okay. I agree with the above that you're commenting like you're writing a tabloid piece.
Click to expand...
 
faugusztin said:
MS agreed in a settlement to put that choice there up until specified date. Then due the error or choice (we will never know), it disappeared after W7 SP1. So it is a violation of a settlement MS agreed to follow.
Click to expand...

This. MS knew better, and decided to remove the ballot screen again in SP1 when they thought no one was looking anymore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top