NJ5 said:
If you have followed Microsoft's antitrust cases at all, you must know that the rules are applied differently to companies which have a monopoly in a particular market. Some deals which would be fine for your random small company are frowned upon when performed by companies which do those deals to squash the competition. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the gaming market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in computers or operating systems, so they have more freedom to do those deals. This is of course because when a company gets big enough, it has the resources to drive competitors out of the market simply by cutting prices and losing money while the competitor goes bankrupt. Then they drive prices back up, and customer lock-in ensures that they get back to making profits, perpetuating a monoply. This is why artificial rules have to be introduced to maintain the choice given by the free markets. There's no free market without regulation, due to this reason.
|
Right..it's fines, to support the EU's ability to fine more companies that succeed. I'll tell you this, I can't see the US Gov't letting this go unchecked. This fine is excessive, to say the least, and with a fine this harsh, it's going to spin into politics quickly. The case here, imho, is to prove how EU consumers were harmed, not to protect a US company from another US company for the sake of competition. I jsut don't see this fine standing up to the withering attack it is going to receive from most US business and the pressure that will be applied to get this overturned. Bottomline will be this...if htey can do this to Intthey can do this others...Apple and Itunes is so going to be in the crosshairs...btw...are they going to force Apple to use AMD chips in their systems?








