General Discussion

steve2470

(37,457 posts) Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:34 AM Mar 2013

EU fines Microsoft $732 million for browser ballot violation

http://www.windows8update.com/2013/03/06/eu-fines-microsoft-732-million-for-browser-ballot-violation/?awt_l=BdjIw&awt_m=3eYFC.yZ6N5gY18

Today, the European Union has decided to fine the company €561 million (around $732 million) for breaking a 2009 antitrust agreement. Back then, Microsoft agreed to include a browser ballot box in every new copy of Windows, allowing users to pick any one of the 12 most popular browsers rather than defaulting to Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Microsoft due to a “technical error” removed this choice in Windows 7 Service Pack 1.

In July 2012, the European Commission formally started investigating, and in October it decided that Microsoft had indeed violated the terms of the agreement.

Microsoft’s statement:

*statement at link*

also here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/technology/eu-fines-microsoft-over-browser.html?_r=0

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EU fines Microsoft $732 million for browser ballot violation (Original Post) steve2470 Mar 2013 OP

'Technical error' Cirque du So-What Mar 2013 #1

agreed ! nt steve2470 Mar 2013 #2

They rolled a $732 million snake-eyes nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #5

Slap on the wrist. talkingmime Mar 2013 #3

I never understood this court decision Mosby Mar 2013 #4

No, the issue is that Microsoft can't use its OS monopoly to create geek tragedy Mar 2013 #6

monopolies are not illegal as you might know Mosby Mar 2013 #7

The difference is that Microsoft is in a position to use its monopoly in one market geek tragedy Mar 2013 #8

nor do i. microsoft isn't preventing anyone from downloading and installing.. frylock Mar 2013 #9

Cirque du So-What

(25,941 posts)

1. 'Technical error'

Reply to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:38 AM

Mar 2013

Talk about a fanciful euphemism. More like, 'we decided to roll the dice and thumb our noses at the law.'

steve2470

(37,457 posts)

2. agreed ! nt

Reply to Cirque du So-What (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:42 AM

Mar 2013

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

5. They rolled a $732 million snake-eyes nt

Reply to Cirque du So-What (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:43 PM

Mar 2013

talkingmime

(2,173 posts)

3. Slap on the wrist.

Reply to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:49 PM

Mar 2013

Mosby

(16,319 posts)

4. I never understood this court decision

Reply to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:41 PM

Mar 2013

Why would a company get in trouble for not including its competitors product with its own?

The courts really are lost when it comes to technology and software.

A long time ago I worked for a drug store that signed an exclusive deal with sylvania light bulbs, part of the deal said that the stores could not sell ge bulbs so out they went. Perfectly legal. Companies can sell what they want.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

6. No, the issue is that Microsoft can't use its OS monopoly to create

Reply to Mosby (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:44 PM

Mar 2013

a web browser monopoly, or a word processing monopoly, etc etc.

Mosby

(16,319 posts)

7. monopolies are not illegal as you might know

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:11 PM

Mar 2013

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2013, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Imo MS is being punished for it's OS success, because whatever they bundle in with it can then be claimed by competitors to be unfair. How is MS supposed to innovate in that kind of hostile environment? They are limited now and that's partly why their position has slipped relative to other tech companies. Back in 1999 they were the biggest company in the world, remember? Now their stock has barely moved in almost 15 years.

Google is a monopoly, should they be punished for innovation? They have a new feature for example where you can search by image, should they have to share that with Yahoo and Bing? After all MS is using their monopoly position to expand it's reach into image only searches.

Starbucks has a monopoly on retail coffee locations in the US and they just introduced a single serve coffee maker. Should they have to offer for sale a keurig machine next to theirs so as not to take advantage of their monopoly position? Of course not, that would be stupid but that is exactly what the EU court told MS to do.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

8. The difference is that Microsoft is in a position to use its monopoly in one market

Reply to Mosby (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:22 PM

Mar 2013

to stifle competition in other markets.

frylock

(34,825 posts)

9. nor do i. microsoft isn't preventing anyone from downloading and installing..

Reply to Mosby (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 04:44 PM

Mar 2013

the browser of their choice. if you can't figure out how to do that and configure your preferred browser as default, then maybe you're just not up to the task of using a computer.

Reply to this discussion