Posted on 03/01/2008 3:27:59 PM PST by AlternateEgo
Antitrust: European regulators have slapped Microsoft with the biggest fine in history. If any group other than a government entity forced the company to hand over money, its members would be guilty of robbery.
After previously fining Microsoft the equivalent of $1.2 billion, the European Commission last week dinged the software giant for an additional $1.4 billion.
Snip...
Proving that compliance isn't the regulatocracy's real goal, the commission levied the fine just days after Microsoft reportedly surrendered to the shakedown and promised it would do more cooperating and less competing with rivals.
Regulators and busybodies on both sides of the Atlantic will argue otherwise, but the points of contention between the European Commission and Microsoft aren't as important as the principles involved.
Antitrust action is not about creating a level playing field or benefiting the consumer. It's about taking down successful companies, in this case a U.S. corporation that European companies can't keep up with, and protecting outfits that could not otherwise compete. The rules are made to trip up businesses that are otherwise law-abiding so they can be controlled — or plundered.
Anyone who disputes this should be required to say from what moral authority the EC derives a right to confiscate wealth from a private company. It might have the power, but it does not have the right.
Microsoft has not harmed the life, liberty or property of anyone. It has committed no crime as criminal activity is legitimately defined. It attained market dominance by selling a product that consumers and business want and purchase voluntarily.
Are there advantages to market dominance? Sure. But rarely does the dominance last. One of the many beauties of the free market system is that open competition always brings innovation that destroys the status quo. ... (more)
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Do business with socialists and this is what will happen.
I’ll tell you were it won’t go. It won’t go into the hands of the software companies or the consumers they claim to represent and help from the evil Microsoft.
What if Microsoft refused to sell in Europe, or demanded a surcharge from European customers to pay off the fines?
What if Microsoft refused to sell in Europe, or demanded a surcharge from European customers to pay off the fines?
Yep, this is nothing but Anti-American company money grabbing. Shameful really. I’d be glad if MSFT just withdrew from Europe entirely over this but I doubt they’d ever do something that drastic.
My thoughts exactly. I had hoped that Atlas would shrug.
Probably the same sort of thing the various governmental agencies did with the "Tobacco Settlement" here: Pi$$ it away.
Ban it, tax it (up front), or leave it alone.
Just wait until they start really looting oil companies...one of Hillary's wetter dreams on this side of the pond...
I’d pay the fines. Who cares, just charge European customers more to foot the bill :-)
This doesn’t hurt Microsoft, it hurts consumers. It’s essentially another tax.
Just charge Europeans twice as much for the software.
Or use Open Source....
Welfare for "youts".
> What if Microsoft refused to sell in Europe, ...
Then this would never have happened.
It would also never have happened if Mr.Bill had
adequately documented the interfaces that allow
other software to interoperate with his. MS is
either unwilling or unable* to do so.
Anyone who wants to operate as a monopoly has to
deal with the fact that many jurisdictions have
adverse law about that, and handle it. MS is not
handling it in a competent fashion.
_______
MS OOXML is a strong argument for “unable”.
“Just charge Europeans twice as much for the software.”
_______________________________________________________
I find it disgusting that governments can take the property of any person or company that has committed no crime. The money they will have to turn over was earned by the skill and work of people who sold a product that consumers and business purchased voluntarily.
Everyone who owns Microsoft stock has to pay for this.
I’m sorry to see that you think it’s simply a matter of charging more for your product.
“Anyone who wants to operate as a monopoly has to deal with the fact that many jurisdictions have adverse law about that, and handle it.”
________________________________________________________
Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you have no choice but to buy a product or service (e.g. cable or telephone service given exclusive rights by the government) then that is a monopoly. If Microsoft is close to a monopoly, it is because people voluntarily chose their product over their competitors.
As Alan Greenspan stated, “businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal” by antitrust laws “until they hear the judge’s verdict.”
The EU Commission decision is arbitrary and legal piracy.
> As Alan Greenspan stated, “businessmen have no way of
> knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal”
> by antitrust laws “until they hear the judge’s verdict.”
In this case, however, MS heard the verdict 4 years ago,
and the fine is for failing to comply with the court’s
orders. This is not a surprise fine. MS has literally
admitted that much.
When the Court of First Instance (or whatever the new
Euro collective calls it) handed down their decree, MS
need to then decide to comply or cut off Europe. They
did neither.
> Microsoft is not a monopoly.
They were dominant. They are trying to become a monopoly.
And they are using bribes and extortion to do so.
Their conduct in the OOXML standards effort has been
particularly reprehensible. I use MS products.
I would like to never buy any again.
_______
Do not confuse MS with Reardon Steel.
> “MS heard the verdict 4 years ago, and the fine is for failing to comply with the court’s orders.
As the article states “Proving that compliance isn’t the regulatocracy’s real goal, the commission levied the fine just days after Microsoft reportedly surrendered to the shakedown and promised it would do more cooperating and less competing with rivals”.
> “They were dominant. They are trying to become a monopoly”
All companies want to be dominant. Being dominant because people voluntarily choose your product is not, nor should it be illegal.
If they were using bribes and extortion, as you claim, then they should be prosecuted for bribes and extortion.
> Do not confuse MS with Reardon Steel.
I think you should read Atlas Shrugged again. Policies and decisions to ‘level the playing field’ is exactly what they did do to Reardon Steel. And promoting standards (e.g. OOXML) that benefit your own best interest is exactly what John Galt whould have championed.
If Bill Gates wasn’t such a liberal weenie, we would have told his fellow libs in Europe to go pound sand and withdraw his products from Europe. I wouldn’t pay them one red cent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.