RSSMicrosoft appeals 899 million euro "late fee" in EU
By Tim Conneally | Published May 12, 2008, 1:34 PM
Microsoft announced on Friday that it has filed an appeal with the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, contesting the antitrust fine demanded by the European Commision in February.
The landmark 899 million euro fine was the culmination of the European Commission's 2004 decision to require Microsoft to change its practices for the sake of fair competition in the EU. The Commission previously fined Microsoft €497 million for bundling Media Player into Windows, and not providing adequate Windows protocol interoperability information to open source developers.
Microsoft amended its practices surrounding this issue, but incurred an additional fine for the period of time ending in October 2007, when a license for the information cost a flat fee of €10,000. The total due for the daily "late fee" applied by the EU Commission came to 899 million euros, or $1.35 billion.
In March 2007, Microsoft Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith said, "We believe we have been fair in setting proposed protocol prices, and an analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that our proposed prices were at least 30 percent below the market rate for comparable technology."
EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes summarized the ruling by saying, "Charging such an unreasonable price effectively rendered the offer of the information pointless." It is the fine for this infraction that Microsoft is appealing. In a statement to the press, Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said, "We are filing this appeal in a constructive effort to seek clarity from the Court."
The company recently revealed changes to its policy for third party access to Microsoft's protocols, and has shown a public "change of heart" toward third party interoperability. It's quite possible the nearly $2.6 billion in fines the EU has levied against Microsoft has something to do with that shift.
Fining a company because they MAY become a monopoly is illegal. Unless Microsoft has 100% of the market (which they do not) they are not a monopoly. There are alternate choices to every business application Microsoft sells.
Score: 0
I belive in the E.U. over 33 % is considerd a monoply
Score: 0
Unfortunately, dictionary definition != legal definition, and as pointed out, EU's definition is defferent from the US's definition (and other countries as well).
Score: 0
Unless Microsoft has 100% of the market (which they do not) they are not a monopoly.
Incorrect.
Monopoly:
(as defined by the US) - Greater than 75% of the market share. This alone will not get a company harassed by the government, one must first be proven to have used that monopoly to unfairly hold that market or gain access to others
(as defined by the EC) - Greater than 39.7%* of the market. In the EC, this *is* enough to get you harassed by the government. You can be required, without question, to open up any of your trade secrets to the competition, regardless of your abuse or lack thereof of your market position.
As you can see, choice does not mean they are not a legal monopoly.
*Lowest share held by a company considered by the EC as "Dominant" as of 2000. Citation
Score: 0
I *think* it's 37.4%, but I lost my link...could be 34.7% or some such. Google is not currently being cooperative.
[Edit: wrong... Under EC's legal definition, it is 39.7%. It's not actually written in stone, but was the "lowest" share of a company the EU found to be "Dominate" in it's market as of the year 2000 which, albeit according to Wikipedia, still stands)
Score: 0
Regardless of what the EU or USA think a monopoly is, by definition a monopoly means a company has exclusive control over a particular market. Since Microsoft does not have exclusive control over any market in the electronics or computer industry this means that according to the laws you quote the EU is taking action against Microsoft by forcing them to open trade secrets and fining them because they may become a monopoly, not because they are a monopoly.
If the EU wants to go after a company that is guilty of monopoly abuse they should go after Rambus. Rambus didn't even invent SDRAM. They only invented RDRAM which is a completely different technology. Rambus is upset that RDRAM flopped and now they are desperate to find another revenue stream.
Score: 0
Maybe you should come and educate the EU then as you are obviously right and they are wrong? Why aren't Microsoft beating down your door to represent them as you are obviously so right? You are wasted on posting replies here when you should be dealing with the legalities of monopoly.
Score: 0
Regardless of what the EU or USA think a monopoly is, by definition a monopoly means a company has exclusive control over a particular market.
Ah. Burying your head in the sand. Always fun to watch.
Enjoy!
Score: 0
the question isn't whether they are a monopoly, the US courts found years ago that thy were. The question is - is the late fees set by the EU too high? That is what MS attorneys are appealing, not whether or not they are a monopoly.
Score: 0
If you look at the post I was responding to, yes, it was a question of monopoly.
I was not commenting on the article in the slightest.
Score: 0