Microsoft Faces $618m Fine In Eu Case

I am still rather confused ( a not altogether uncommon state for me) as to why the integration of WMP constitutes a monopolistic action at all.
To me, it just looks as though MS was trying to upgrade/improve their base product ( the OS) with an added feature.
It's hardly as though they made it impossible ( or even that difficult) to add a new default media player should one choose.

1). If I am assessing this situation correctly, then why aren't aftermarket air-conditioner or radio manufacturers suing say, Ford, for cutting them out of the lucrative market for these products by integrating them into new cars?

2). If RealPlayer wants so desperately to increase it's market share, why don't they design and build their own OS in which to integrate their player? That's essentially what MS has done, no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 May 2004 - 11:24
The EU's Competition Commissioner had accused the company of illegally exploiting its stranglehold on the personal computer market.

On the one hand, the commissioner said, Microsoft was trying to corner the market for servers, the larger back-end computers which store information for other users to access.

On the other, he charged, it was trying to stifle competition for multimedia players such as Real Networks' Realplayer and Apple's Quicktime.

Old Source

i think the whole WMP may only be part of it.

---

Hmmm...American companies......

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman
Hmmm...American companies......

---

Hmmm... European consumers......

"Oh my god!!! I'm European and I have to use WMP because it comes with Windows."

"I am so harmed"!!!

"I want justice......put RealPlayer on my prepackaged computer and I'll feel better"

"No I don't want to download it"

"Furthermore, Microsoft, reveal your source code to the world because I'm tired of your shit. You have made my life a living hell."

"I pay my bills, do taxes, write letters, and go on the internet with your software and you stink!!!"

EU laws on competiton are strict, but MS knew that and they knew they were going to get fined. It was the size of the fine which made them baulk. The EU tend to do their own thing.

I read somewhere that the Japanese were starting to ship computers for commercial business without a MS OS (can't recall the alternative OS) but they were apparently tired of the security issues associated with MS products.

Competition is good though (isn't it? :) )

Well.. Busyman has just shown that he doesn't understand this issue.

Heres a crash course in economic theory.

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Competition is good for consumers.

Have a nice day. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@11 May 2004 - 23:56
"Oh my god!!! I'm European and I have to use WMP because it comes with Windows."

"I am so harmed"!!!

"I want justice......put RealPlayer on my prepackaged computer and I'll feel better"

"No I don't want to download it"

"Furthermore, Microsoft, reveal your source code to the world because I'm tired of your shit. You have made my life a living hell."

"I pay my bills, do taxes, write letters, and go on the internet with your software and you stink!!!"

---

You dont seem to understand. Ill try to explain with a very simple example:

Imagine that just the OS costs X and WMP costs Y. If i just want to buy de OS there is no way i can pay just X,which is its real price, i have to pay X+Y when i only want the OS.

Its like if you went to buy a car and the guy tells you:You buy it with our CD-player or you dont buy it. What if i dont want that CD-player, what if i dont want a CD-player at all?I would have to pay for it anyways.

If you didnt understand please raise your hand and ill try to explain again :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@11 May 2004 - 19:27
EU laws on competiton are strict, but MS knew that and they knew they were going to get fined. It was the size of the fine which made them baulk. The EU tend to do their own thing.

I read somewhere that the Japanese were starting to ship computers for commercial business without a MS OS (can't recall the alternative OS) but they were apparently tired of the security issues associated with MS products.

Competition is good though (isn't it?  :)  )

---

Well there ya go.

Use someone elses OS then.

Other than that I understand what you say about competition.

I know it well from the telcom industry.

Since the breakup of the Baby Bells the older consumers (those who were around when it was Ma Bell) have witnessed shittier service year after year.

Some and only some of your arguments are flawed regarding monopolies.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here yonki but how much did Windows up their price by adding WMP and Internet Explorer?

Explain it to me again.

Btw car companies do that all time regarding certain features.

I can't choose an after market CD player because I have to get theirs to get tires and air conditioning.....and pay extra for it. It called the luxurious premium package.

@Biggles- the EU's strict competition laws seemed to kick in right after America's.

Nice going. :)
-------------
It seems the monopoly was created by a damn good product.

If you don't like it, buy something else....oh no but you won't so...leech off the monopoly.

We have this in telecom.

We have to sell lines below cost to competitors to....compete with us. :blink:
They have space in our central offices.
Not only that they want part of new technologies like fiber optics that we haven't even built yet.

If you don't like a monopoly, regulate them.

Cable has be deregulated here for years and prices have soared past inflation but.....people keep buying.

I may be stupid, but i have trouble understanding the arguement busyman..

No European Companies were being hurt... this is true, if they had a half decent IT department.


However, the monopoly laws are there to protect consumers, not companies.

They broke the law, they pay the price.


Your argument seems to imply that if an American kills an American in Europe, he shouldnt be tried for that as no Europeans were hurt. Crap.

OK, theres a huge difference between breaking Monopoly Laws and murder, however the Law is the Law. Just because no Europeans were "hurt" is no reason to exclude US companies from it.

You may feel sympathy for people that get collared by "unjust" Laws, but you cant demand or expect that American Companies should be excluded....just because they're American.

You break a Law, you get caught, you pay a price.

Its a risk most people on this Forum take every day...we all know that, im sure Microsoft knew it too. They have an awful lot of fancy lawyers on their side...so they probably know it a lot better than we do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 20:40
I may be stupid, but i have trouble understanding the arguement busyman..

No European Companies were being hurt... this is true, if they had a half decent IT department.


However, the monopoly laws are there to protect consumers, not companies.

They broke the law, they pay the price.


Your argument seems to imply that if an American kills an American in Europe, he shouldnt be tried for that as no Europeans were hurt. Crap.

OK, theres a huge difference between breaking Monopoly Laws and murder, however the Law is the Law. Just because no Europeans were "hurt" is no reason to exclude US companies from it.

You may feel sympathy for people that get collared by "unjust" Laws, but you cant demand or expect that American Companies should be excluded....just because they're American.

You break a Law, you get caught, you pay a price.

Its a risk most people on this Forum take every day...we all know that, im sure Microsoft knew it too. They have an awful lot of fancy lawyers on their side...so they probably know it a lot better than we do.

---

Uh..huh.

How were you harmed?

I'm in America and Microsoft didn't kick me in the ass for erroneous amounts of money.

Hell, I seem to enjoy computing more than I did 10 years ago.

Thanks for harming me Microsoft.

Again you made my life hell. <_<