Microsoft gets its wrist slapped. Again!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An administrative error?  Hah!

 

The surprising thing is that the U.S. Commerce Department and our Competition Bureau have not got on this bandwagon.  I guess the alternate browser people on this continent don't care, but they have this nice international precedent now.  I don't think it is the first time MS got in trouble over this issue.

 

How nice would such a juicy fine look in the general revenue of both the U.S. and Canada.  Not a lot of money, but every little bit helps.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

When will Apple get its wrists slapped?

--Ocram

Sent from my iPhone

[macvirt 361]

When will Apple get its wrists slapped?

--Ocram

Sent from my iPhone

 

It's had its wrists slapped a fair few times in the EU. Remember the major issues around Apple refusing to recognise the legal 2 year minimum warranty terms of the EU Directives. Big and costly lawsuits in most member states, severe conflict with several EU Directorates. Apple however is just a bit smarter than Microsoft in knowing when and where to be quiet. That said, if Apple continues to focus on a lock-in market model it is going to get in conflict with the warnings already given by the Commission on that matter. In that regard the next 36 months will be interesting.

 

Microsoft somehow suffers from a regional economic blindness. Not arrogance as with Apple, but a strange selective blindness. The company did have several strong warnings, but somehow while the EU offices (as reported in the press here) took those serious the American headoffice folks ignored those once again. 

 

Back home stateside we are used to lobby mechanisms that prevent this kind of governance interference. In the EU somehow they are managing to balance lobby mechanisms with consumer interests, selective and general interests in balance if you will. What always puzzles me is how European companies tend to make that work in their favour in the long term. Stateside there's just no such long term mentality somehow. 

[timmie 988]

When will Apple get its wrists slapped?

--Ocram

Sent from my iPhone

 

It's had its wrists slapped a fair few times in the EU. Remember the major issues around Apple refusing to recognise the legal 2 year minimum warranty terms of the EU Directives. Big and costly lawsuits in most member states, severe conflict with several EU Directorates. Apple however is just a bit smarter than Microsoft in knowing when and where to be quiet. That said, if Apple continues to focus on a lock-in market model it is going to get in conflict with the warnings already given by the Commission on that matter. In that regard the next 36 months will be interesting.

 

Microsoft somehow suffers from a regional economic blindness. Not arrogance as with Apple, but a strange selective blindness. The company did have several strong warnings, but somehow while the EU offices (as reported in the press here) took those serious the American headoffice folks ignored those once again. 

 

Back home stateside we are used to lobby mechanisms that prevent this kind of governance interference. In the EU somehow they are managing to balance lobby mechanisms with consumer interests, selective and general interests in balance if you will. What always puzzles me is how European companies tend to make that work in their favour in the long term. Stateside there's just no such long term mentality somehow. 

 

Apple will definitely feel the wrath of the EU Commission (or any European court) in the future, and I am pretty sure it will be about their warranty policy which is, I think, not in accordance with EU law.

 

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

[Wiimeiser 452]

I guess IE is really that bad...

[hym 358]

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

 

There is a different understanding of what is meant by "free market."  In the US, that is generally taken to mean that the government stays out of the affairs of the private sector.  An anti-trust lawsuit is most certainly the government interfering with the affairs of the private sector.

[timmie 988]

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

 

There is a different understanding of what is meant by "free market."  In the US, that is generally taken to mean that the government stays out of the affairs of the private sector.  An anti-trust lawsuit is most certainly the government interfering with the affairs of the private sector.

 

So in America, it is preferred that the market is so free that it can transform itself in an unfree market? (Monopolies, cartels,...)

[hym 358]

 

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

 

There is a different understanding of what is meant by "free market."  In the US, that is generally taken to mean that the government stays out of the affairs of the private sector.  An anti-trust lawsuit is most certainly the government interfering with the affairs of the private sector.

 

So in America, it is preferred that the market is so free that it can transform itself in an unfree market? (Monopolies, cartels,...)

 

US anti-trust legislation has never really been about breaking apart monopolies.  (In fact, US judges have explicitly distinguished between "good monopolies" and "bad monopolies.")  Corporations in the US are generally allowed to enjoy monopoly status so long as they do not abuse the privilege.  (The reality is more complex than that, but I'm speaking in generalities.)  Once corporations start using their monopoly status to gain unfair competitive advantage, then they become a higher target for federal anti-trust regulators.

 

One might argue that it would be better if the US was more adamant about breaking up monopolies, but history suggests such a move would likely be a mixed bag at best (and possibly even worse than things are now).  AT&T is a perfect example of a company that was split up because federal regulators claimed that it had built itself up illegally.  AT&T wound up getting the last laugh, however, as, over the next 2 decades, the company rebuilt itself bigger than it was before, with the added benefit that the federal regulators couldn't touch it this time.  While federal regulators have the power of the law on their side of the issue, the private sector boardrooms seem to be better at long-term planning than the government is.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

 

There is a different understanding of what is meant by "free market."  In the US, that is generally taken to mean that the government stays out of the affairs of the private sector.  An anti-trust lawsuit is most certainly the government interfering with the affairs of the private sector.

Which paradoxally results in an unfree market as it allows monopolies to form. 

 

That aside, this is just nonsense and I believe the EU should cease this crusade against Microsoft at once. All it has achieved is that Microsoft increased the price of its OS rather than benefit the consumer in any significant way. 

[Duke87 1,070]

This just makes no sense to me. Why should any company be forced to promote its competitors' products? If they actively tried to stop you from using a browser other than IE, that would be one thing (Microsoft did get in trouble in the US a while back for just that), but if all they're doing is including IE by default and leaving it up to the user to take initiative if they want something else, what's wrong with that? If you want another browser, nobody's stopping you from installing one. But the reality is that a lot of people who aren't tech-savvy don't care.

[macvirt 361]

 

When will Apple get its wrists slapped?

--Ocram

Sent from my iPhone

 

It's had its wrists slapped a fair few times in the EU. Remember the major issues around Apple refusing to recognise the legal 2 year minimum warranty terms of the EU Directives. Big and costly lawsuits in most member states, severe conflict with several EU Directorates. Apple however is just a bit smarter than Microsoft in knowing when and where to be quiet. That said, if Apple continues to focus on a lock-in market model it is going to get in conflict with the warnings already given by the Commission on that matter. In that regard the next 36 months will be interesting.

 

Microsoft somehow suffers from a regional economic blindness. Not arrogance as with Apple, but a strange selective blindness. The company did have several strong warnings, but somehow while the EU offices (as reported in the press here) took those serious the American headoffice folks ignored those once again. 

 

Back home stateside we are used to lobby mechanisms that prevent this kind of governance interference. In the EU somehow they are managing to balance lobby mechanisms with consumer interests, selective and general interests in balance if you will. What always puzzles me is how European companies tend to make that work in their favour in the long term. Stateside there's just no such long term mentality somehow. 

 

Apple will definitely feel the wrath of the EU Commission (or any European court) in the future, and I am pretty sure it will be about their warranty policy which is, I think, not in accordance with EU law.

 

Is it really that bad in the USA? I thought there were also impressive anti-trust lawsuits in the United States. I also don't think this should be called government interference. Anti-trust regulation and litigation are essential elements of a free market economy: they are tools to guarantee that the economy is really free. A country that loves the free market as much as the USA should also appreciate and use these instruments.

 

In the US, under a barrage of decades of propaganda, we have forgotten that liberalism is but one school of thought, liaised to but one model of economics, both dependant on variables and conditions which we have not paid much attention to - control over those has shifted in the previous century from governance to economic forces. We have turned liberalism in to an ideology and we treat it as a belief system, with the natural result that we have made ourselves rather blind to both positive and negative challenges that arise when variables and conditions change.

[timmie 988]

Which paradoxally results in an unfree market as it allows monopolies to form. 

 

That aside, this is just nonsense and I believe the EU should cease this crusade against Microsoft at once. All it has achieved is that Microsoft increased the price of its OS rather than benefit the consumer in any significant way.

 

Chances are this impacts the consumer in an indirect way, but on the other hand, should you refrain from prosecuting a company for this reason? That's a way of admitting governments have no power over corporations and implies there is no rule of law anymore. But I agree, it's not easy to balance between punishing companies and harming the consumers. But I think governments can't afford to not punish them if they breach the law.

 

In the US, under a barrage of decades of propaganda, we have forgotten that liberalism is but one school of thought, liaised to but one model of economics, both dependant on variables and conditions which we have not paid much attention to - control over those has shifted in the previous century from governance to economic forces. We have turned liberalism in to an ideology and we treat it as a belief system, with the natural result that we have made ourselves rather blind to both positive and negative challenges that arise when variables and conditions change.

 

Well, from what I understand, is has to do with a different understanding of liberalism. The actions of the European Commission are definitely liberal (not in the American sense of the word) too, but the interpretation is somewhat different.

 

This just makes no sense to me. Why should any company be forced to promote its competitors' products? If they actively tried to stop you from using a browser other than IE, that would be one thing (Microsoft did get in trouble in the US a while back for just that), but if all they're doing is including IE by default and leaving it up to the user to take initiative if they want something else, what's wrong with that? If you want another browser, nobody's stopping you from installing one. But the reality is that a lot of people who aren't tech-savvy don't care.

 

Well, I think this has to do with the different interpretation of protection of the free market. I think in the EU no differentiation is made between benign and malevolent monopolies. The reasoning of the Commission is something like this: because most people buy Windows (or: a computer with Windows pre-installed), this gives Microsoft a position to easily become dominant in the market of web-browsers. They use a monopoly to create another monopoly, so to speak, and I think the reasoning is this hurts the free market, namely the software sector. The essential point for the fine is that they did not respect the agreement they had made with the Commission.

I read in the paper that this now brings the total of fines for Microsoft in the EU at 2,2 billion euros.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Chances are this impacts the consumer in an indirect way, but on the other hand, should you refrain from prosecuting a company for this reason? That's a way of admitting governments have no power over corporations and implies there is no rule of law anymore. But I agree, it's not easy to balance between punishing companies and harming the consumers. But I think governments can't afford to not punish them if they breach the law.

No, they should totally go after Microsoft if they actually blatantly abuse their position. If Microsoft for example, only made it possible to run IE on windows then they should definitely be prosecuted for that. But this? Setting IE as the default browser? How does this negatively impact the consumer, other than that they have to spend 2 minutes of their busy schedule downloading and installing an alternative browser when they bought their computer. Definitely not worth fining them over. 

 

More importantly, Microsoft so far has always responded by taking it out on the consumer. When the EU forced them to do something with the browser in Windows 7, it made Windows 7 cost about a 100 dollars more in the EU than it did in the US, and you were not allowed to buy your Windows 7 somewhere outside the EU. Good job Commissioner of competition, you just cost me a 100 euros extra just so IE is no longer the default browser. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

When will Apple get its wrists slapped?

--Ocram

Sent from my iPhone

Careful, you are involved with Apple.

 

If you are going to complain about the company, why not withdraw your support?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I purposely typed that to show the irony. Now I will explain my position. I use both Windows 7 and an Apple iPhone 4. I have had my iPhone 4 since the launch of the iPhone 4s and once this breaks (I hope that won't happen for a long while because I have an Otter Box), I will upgrade to a Samsung phone, probably a Galaxy S3 or S4.

--Ocram