Comments on: EU's $1.35 billion fine on Microsoft to do any good?

As Microsoft gets hit yet again by the European Commission, CNET blogger Matt Asay says past fines haven't had any effect on the software company's business.

[Simplicius]

Matt says:

"Well, I hope the EC stops crowning itself regulator of the free world."

The EC has never done that. The EC does it job of taking care of the situation in Europe.

There is this thing called "The Law". Microsoft is welcome to do business in Europe if it respects the European law. It has repeatedly broken it in the past and continues to do so in the present, though the situation seems to be improving. Why shouldn't the EC do its job?

For the record, since some of your readers have mentioned the idiotic argument that all of this is happening because MSFT is American, the EC has also intervened very strongly in the case of EUROPEAN energy companies. In fact, the EC has come done MORE strongly with other companies than it has with MSFT.

[seo2seo]

"It's tough to please the European Commission (EC) on matters of antitrust."

No, it's not. Only you and Microsoft seem to have a problem.

"Now why would she think that? The EC has dinged Microsoft before with fines...to no effect."

So far. This was a record fine; if M$ want to continue making records, that's fine by me - we'll get a few high speed railways out of it. But I suspect that sooner or later, they'll learn. And you think we should let M$ get away with it?

"Well, I hope the EC stops crowning itself regulator of the free world. The market can take care of itself. "

Patently untrue, or M$ would not be continuing in it's monopolistic behaviour. The market has shown - all over the world - that it has a problem with monopolies, that's why all countries have antitrust laws. Including yours. In this case, M$ just clicked a filter in Europe before the States. And you think we should let M$ get away with it?

You are choosing your words carefully to criticise both M$ and the EU; Here in Europe, we don't like abuse of the market, and until they change, we don't like Microsoft. So we don't chastise the EU on this occasion, we applaud them.

On this occasion, EU=Good, M$=BAD. Period. No weasel words, no problem.

We save the chides for those who do something bad - your new friend, M$.

[Matt Asay]

Are you being serious? ("your new friend")? You can't possibly be serious? How long have you been reading my blog? I've been talking very consistently about Microsoft and open source for nearly 10 years. If you're troubled by a recent stance that I've taken then you lack historical context. Stop troubling me with your unfounded allegations.

[thomas.terrrainnova.org]

"The market can take care of itself."

That has absolutely no basis. In fact, this is the argument monopolies use to protect their status quo. The market CAN'T take care of itself, and that is why there are regulators. The EU regulators are doing their job, hitting Microsoft with fines every time it breaks the law. The US regulators set such small fines (if they even do that) which Microsoft has absolutely no problem paying up, and consider a cost of running their monopoly.

If you think that keeping Microsoft as a monopoly in the OS environment serves the customers' interests, you're making a huge mistake.

At the end of the day, as someone else said, these fines are set because Microsoft wants to do business in Europe. If they don't like it, they can take their business elsewhere. But don't think for a second, that just because monopolies reign gree in the US, that the same thing will happen in Europe.

[Matt Asay]

Give me a break, guys. Look at the world as it is, not as it was. You're frittering away concern on yesterday's markets. Yes, Microsoft still makes billions on its desktop monopoly, but who cares about the desktop? Google?

It's shocking to see how reactionary people can be. I'm looking forward. The future sees little of Microsoft. Why don't you join me there?

[kiwibuntu]

Why don't I join you there? Simple. Because of the numerous, mission-critical, legacy systems out there which rely on Windows and Office. Even if Microsoft ceased selling software tomorrow, it would take a long time to flush their software and protocols out of the system. And that is the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. The EU is absolutely correct on this matter and I can only hope there is a lot more where that came from. BTW I like the future you are trying to make, and I am grateful to the EU for helping bring it about.

[dio_gratia]

While not directly about patent fees, rather "By charging other companies prohibitive royalty rates for the essential information they needed to offer software products to computer users around the world."

The net effect is the same, raising competition's marginal costs to maximize their own profits. The amount of money they were asking could be an indication of their own marginal costs. If it isn't then perhaps its the result of a calculus that provides for a threshold size of a business, that our favored monopoly could then pursue for acquisition?