Before the inevitable Why are Euros regulating an American company? posts, let me point out that Microsoft conducts business in Europe and thus is subject to EU jurisdiction. European companies doing business in the US are also subject to US law.

Before the inevitable Why are Euros regulating an American company? posts, let me point out that Microsoft conducts business in Europe and thus is subject to EU jurisdiction. European companies doing business in the US are also subject to US law.

Great, so we should rejoice that the Europeans are trying to squeeze our markets while we let them roam free in ours (ie. Boeing vs Airbus)? In case you haven't heard, those EU bastards don't play by the same rules. Airbus is heavily subsidized by EU governments while Boeing is left to fend for itself. That means they can outbid us for contracts and effectively decimate our airline industry. Yeah, thanks for the input, pal. We're all just thrilled at the prospect of EU oversight of Microsoft.

If Microsoft does not want to obey EU law, they don't have to do business there. ALL businesses in Europe (above a set revenue threshold that engage in inter-nation commerce) are subject to EU competition law. Are you suggesting that Microsoft should be exempt? I assure you the European Commission is much harder on European firms than foreigners doing business in Europe (the highest competition law fine was levied on Volkswagon). You have a point about Boeing/Airbus, but that is not the issue here. I agree that state subsidies distort markets and should not be allowed (if that is your point). The US susbsidizes a lot of its industries as well (agriculture being a prime example), and sets restrictive quotas on imports into the US - a type of subsidy. In fact the EU views Boeing's defense work as a type of subsidy.

Oh, and I'm not your pal.

If Microsoft does not want to obey EU law, they don't have to do business there.

Sure, let's let the gangsters tell us where we can sell our products. While we let theirs sail into our country without any hindrance.

ALL businesses in Europe (above a set revenue threshold that engage in inter-nation commerce) are subject to EU competition law. Are you suggesting that Microsoft should be exempt?

No, I'm suggesting that the EU should treat Microsoft fairly. Microsoft's contracts with American OEMs, ISPs, ICPs, etc are, quite frankly, none of the EU's business. And whether its software plays nicely with Sun's or Oracle's is not the EU's role.

I assure you the European Commission is much harder on European firms than foreigners doing business in Europe (the highest competition law fine was levied on Volkswagon).

I don't care whether they're "harder on European firms than foreigners doing business in Europe". That is a sideshow.

You have a point about Boeing/Airbus, but that is not the issue here. I agree that state subsidies distort markets and should not be allowed (if that is your point). The US susbsidizes a lot of its industries as well (agriculture being a prime example), and sets restrictive quotas on imports into the US - a type of subsidy.

It has everything to do with the issue: the EU is trying to get an unfair advantage in practically every market. And in markets where they don't dominate (ie. agriculture), they close their markets to our products. This is just one step in hindering Microsoft's products in the European marketplace and letting others take its place (ie. SAP, etc).

In fact the EU views Boeing's defense work as a type of subsidy.

Uh, right. But Boeing is actually providing aircraft for what it's being paid. Airbus is merely having its inefficiencies subsidized and coddled by EU governments.

Oh, and I'm not your pal.

Right, I'm a heterosexual.

I suppose your staggering ignorance of antitrust law, international relations, and EU law is excused by your hometown, Seattle (BTW, do you work for Microsoft or Boeing, or are you just a good homey?).

The EU Commission is not composed of "gangsters". Do you really believe this or are you merely venting? Europe has no competing OS of any size that it could favor, unless you think Linux is some sort of dastardly Finnish plot.

Re: subsidies. How many billions of dollars did the US airline industry just receive? Re: agriculture. US peanuts, milk, sugar, honey, etc.? Both EU and US subsidize agriculture and consumers pay more for their food as a result.

Foreign companies do not "roam free" in the US; they are subject to ALL US law, including antitrust law, and including conduct outside the US (Zenith v. Matsushita; Timberlane Lumber v. Bank of America; Mannington Mills v. Congoleum, etc.).

I suppose your staggering ignorance of antitrust law, international relations, and EU law is excused by your hometown, Seattle (BTW, do you work for Microsoft or Boeing, or are you just a good homey?).

Since you're not man enough to even disclose where your anonymous ass is posting from, I'll ignore that snide remark.

The EU Commission is not composed of "gangsters". Do you really believe this or are you merely venting?

It's a metaphor. Deal with it.

Europe has no competing OS of any size that it could favor, unless you think Linux is some sort of dastardly Finnish plot.

Microsoft is competing head-to-head against a lot of European application software companies. Even more so today than a decade ago as MS seeks new markets.

Re: subsidies. How many billions of dollars did the US airline industry just receive? Re: agriculture. US peanuts, milk, sugar, honey, etc.? Both EU and US subsidize agriculture and consumers pay more for their food as a result.

I think we're both agreeing vociferously here: Subsidies are bad.

Foreign companies do not "roam free" in the US; they are subject to ALL US law, including antitrust law, and including conduct outside the US (Zenith v. Matsushita; Timberlane Lumber v. Bank of America; Mannington Mills v. Congoleum, etc.).

Our markets are much more open to foreign goods than the EU's. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

you're not man enough to even disclose where your anonymous ass is posting from

In your own words, 'deal with it'. You are incredibly rude. From your first post you engaged in name calling and now you are escalating to profanity. Let me cue you in: this does nothing to advance your argument; it just reveals how little you really have to say. Are you able to respond without further name calling or profanities?

Back to substance (can you do this without name calling?): you assert foreign businesses have it easy in the US compared to the EU. Can you give me one example where a US company has been fined by the EU Commission for antitrust violations? I have already supplied the names of three cases where US antitrust law applied to foreign companies. In Timkin Roller Bearing v. US, foreign nationals were criminally charged with violating US antitrust law, despite never having set foot in the US. Can you point me to any comparable cases in the EU?

Subsidies: glad we can agree on something.

Fines, you ask? By the look of things, the EU is just getting warmed up:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/21/211403.shtml

And here's a good example of how a meddlesome foreign bureaucratic body can thwart the merger of two American companies -- just 'cause it doesn't like it:

http://www.fool.com/Features/1997/sp970702Forging.htm

This is an excellent comparison of U.S. and EU antitrust policy (however tilted it is concerning the basic merits of antitrust law, in the first place):

http://www.antitrust.org/law/EU/intlLaw.html

Merger banning is not a fine (the US DoJ also banned the MCIWorldCom/Sprint proposed merger so you can't blame the EU for it falling apart). Sorry. Knew you would fail.

Merger banning is not a fine (the US DoJ also banned the MCIWorldCom/Sprint proposed merger so you can't blame the EU for it falling apart). Sorry. Knew you would fail.

Whatever. I'm not surprised that an apologist for the EU commission can't see the danger of overreaching bureaucracies. And mark my words: The EU commission is going to get a lot more heavy-handed in the future. It's stated goal -- to promote competition -- should be rewritten "to promote protectionism".

There are cases where the EU has fined US companies; I just did not think you would find them. And there are differences between US antitrust law and EU competition law; protectionism is not a real area of difference. If you are (really) interested in learning more (and your last post was much more thoughtful - sorry I could not respond in greater detail but I was pressed for time), send me an email and I will respond with links and more info. I am an antitrust lawyer who has practiced in both US and EU so I know what I am talking about.