scottie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
MS was breaking the law the EU announced it was going to investigate MS chose to stop breaking the law The EU chose to stop investigating, effectively letting MS off with a warning. MS chose to break the law again (or did it by accident, which is still not a defence) the EU fined them.
The only thing MS volunteered to do was stop breaking the law, and they couldn't even keep that promise.
It may be true in America that corporations can get away with anti competitive behaviour, but not in Europe. In Europe, using your monopoly in one area to prevent competition for a seperate service of yours is illegal.
As for whether the self important beaurocrats were right to enforce the laws, that is a subjective thing and I will not be able to convince you that they were right to do something that will lead to increased competition, better products and better prices, and you will not be able to convince me that they were wrong. So how about we just call it a day with you having learnt a bit about competition law? |
I don't appreciate your condescending tone the the bolded statement above, but I'll reply anyway.
You are wrong in your assessment, there is no law that companies must offer services from their competitors, or any law against including a default web browser. Also, there is and was never any evedence that Microsoft including IE as the default browser in Windows (same as Apple including Safari as default) was harming competition in any way. In fact, to the contrary, competition was so vibrant then, that IE was quickly losing market share at the time without the browser ballot in place, and the browser ballot had no impact on market share so was not necessary to begin with. Also, the lack of a browser ballot in W7 SP1 also had no impact on browser market share as IE's popularity continued to plummet. The investigation was crap to begin with, Microsoft voluntarily offered this as settlement because they were already aware of the bullying tactics of the EU.
The original fine in 2004 was related to Windows Media Player and related technologies, as well as closed technology related Windows Client/Server interoperability (not allowing competing server systems to integrate properly with Active Directory/Server 2003/Windows XP).
In 2009, the EU started a new investigation into Microsoft's imagined anti-competitive practice of including their browser as the default (just like every other OS does). This was total nonsense since IE was already in rapid decline (which would not be the case if there were true monopolistic behavior), but MS offered to include a browser ballot as part of a settlement (which also included MS not bundling IE with Windows) rather than fight another investigation, resulting in the EU closing the investigation.
MS had a tech glitch or oversight with W7 SP1 that 'broke' the browser ballot for some EU users (violation of voluntary action in the settlement, note that there is no LAW directly requiring the browser ballot). In spite of the fact that there was absolutely no measurable difference in browser market share related to the missing browser ballot, the fact that MS was still shipping Windows 7 E without IE bundled by default, and that IE's market share is at record lows, now below 30% (meaning no harm was actually done to competition), the EU decided to fine MS as if they had actually harmed competition in some way.
Fines like this should be based on laws and hard evidence. Since there is no law stating that a company must offer competing services, nor any evidence that MS including IE as default had in any way harmed competition, the fine should be small or non-existent. In reality, a 'monopoly' investigation should not be opened against a product or service in rapid decline.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57573159-75/microsoft-the-eu-fine-and-a-browser-ballot-no-one-missed/
"In 2004 the EU fined Microsoft about $800 million for an actual violation of its competition laws. Yet, without a finding that Microsoft actually violated EU antitrust laws in the browser market, the Commission has now fined Microsoft almost as much for its inadvertent and quickly remedied noncompliance with a voluntary commitment."
"In 2009, the Commission settled charges that Microsoft had monopolized the EU browser market -- even as Internet Explorer's market share was plummeting -- by accepting Microsoft's commitment to show a browser ballot in the Windows setup process."
http://windowsitpro.com/article/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/eu-fines-microsoft-732-million-breaking-terms-antitrust-deal-145345
"The European Union fined Microsoft $732 million for breaking the terms of its 2009 antitrust settlement last year by silently removing the Browser Ballot Choice interface from Windows 7. Microsoft, which says it did so inadvertently, is the first company that’s ever broken a voluntary agreement with EU regulators and the fine was aimed in part in sending a message to other would-be scofflaws."
Microsoft offered the browser ballot voluntarily as part of the settlement, that is what I mean by a voluntary commitment. There is no law in place that an entity must offer services from its competitors. The fact that a fine over a technical glitch or inadvertant mistake is so massive is ridiculous.
Any idea that there is any monopolization now is obsurd. There clearly was no monopoly as browser choice was not locked down in '09 when the settlement was made, and since plenty of competing browsers were thriving at the time while IE was in rapid decline.
There is some case to be made for some level of fine, but making a fine over a tech glitch or mistake nearly as large as the original fine (when IE has already lost any semblance of monopoly status, or even prominence) is insane in my opinion.
