EU fines Microsoft $731 million

Posted by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 03/07/2013 08:21 AM | 53 comment(s) ]
The European Union fined Microsoft Corp 561 million euros ($731 million) on Wednesday for failing to offer users a choice of web browser, an unprecedented sanction that will act as a warning to other firms involved in EU antitrust disputes. It said the U.S. software company had broken a legally binding commitment made in 2009 to ensure that consumers had a choice of how they access the internet, rather than defaulting to Microsoft's Explorer browser.
An investigation found that Microsoft had failed to honor that obligation in software issued between May 2011 and July 2012, meaning 15 million users were not given a choice.
It is the first time the European Commission, the EU's anti-trust authority, has handed down a fine to a company for failing to meet its obligations.
While the sanction is sizeable, representing more than 11 percent of Microsoft's expected net profit this quarter and 1 percent of annual sales, the Commission could have charged the company up to 10 percent of annual global revenue.
Shares of the world's largest software company fell 1.3 percent to $27.98 on Nasdaq.
"If companies agree to offer commitments which then become legally binding, they must do what they have committed to do or face the consequences," Joaquin Almunia, the EU's competition commissioner, told a news conference.
"I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance."
Microsoft said it took full responsibility for the incident, which it has blamed on a technical error. The board cut chief executive Steve Ballmer's bonus last year partly as a result, and also faulted former Windows head Steven Sinofsky who left the company last year for unrelated reasons.
The company did not say whether it would challenge the ruling, but it is not expected to do so, largely so as not to antagonize regulators.
"We have apologized for it," Microsoft said in a statement.
"We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake - or anything similar - in the future."
Almunia said regulators may have made a mistake by allowing Microsoft to police its own behavior instead of appointing an external trustee to ensure compliance with the commitments.
"In 2009, we were even more naive than today," he said.
WARNING SHOT TO GOOGLE, OTHERS
Microsoft's fine is a good example of the Commission's hard line approach towards companies which disregard rules whether deliberately or not, said Charles Whiddington, a partner at London-based law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse.
"The implications for companies going forward is that they must be more rigorous in complying with any agreement with the Commission, which does not take prisoners for infractions," he said.
"Companies face severe sanctions for flouting EU rules, even accidentally."
Wednesday's fine brings the total of EU fines issued against Microsoft over the past decade to more than 2.2 billion euros, making it the world's worst offender of EU rules.
While the charge could have been higher, it still marks a firm sanction and will be carefully noted by the likes of Google, which is involved in a dispute with the Commission over how it ranks search engine results.
Google is under pressure to offer concessions to prevent the Commission moving to the next stage in the case, which could involve fines. Other major technology firms such as Samsung Electronics are also under investigation.
Wednesday's decision is expected to help Microsoft draw a line under its troubles in Europe as it gears up for an intensified battle against Google. Microsoft is one of the complainants in the EU's investigation into the search giant.
Almunia has also signaled EU regulators' concern over antitrust issues in the links between technology platform owners and application developers, in a move that could spell trouble for Apple Inc and Google, whose iPads and Android tablets are the leading the growth of the computer market.
Relations between the EU's antitrust body and Microsoft have frequently been tense. In 2004, the Commission found that the firm had abused its dominant market position by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows software package.
In 2009, in order to resolve other competition concerns, Microsoft undertook to offer users a browser choice screen allowing them to download a browser other than Explorer.
The Commission made that obligation legally binding for five years, until 2014, and initially the company complied. From March 2010 until November 2010, 84 million browsers were downloaded via the screen, the Commission said.
But the Windows 7 service pack 1 rolled out between mid-2011 and mid-2012 failed to offer the choice, leading to the investigation that resulted in Wednesday's fine.
In calculating the fine, the Commission said it had taken into account that Microsoft had cooperated by providing information that had helped speed up the investigation.
Analysts always found it odd that Microsoft would have purposefully failed to offer a choice of browsers via its software given that the potential fine for such a failure would far exceed any potential income from not offering it.
Microsoft's share of the European browser market has more than halved since 2008 to 24 percent. Google's Chrome has a 35 percent share, followed by Mozilla's Firefox with 29 percent, according to Web traffic analysis company StatCounter.
Given Microsoft's fading power in the browser market, some questioned the size and point of the fine.
"As always, the regulators are late to the party," said Kim Forrest, senior equity research analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group in Pittsburgh. "How did the EU come up with that figure in damages? There are no restrictions as to being able to place a new browser on the PC and it's really kind of clear that Microsoft isn't benefiting monetarily from the browser at this point."
(Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle. Editing by Luke Baker, Anna Willard and Andrew Hay
EU fines Intel 1.06 Billion EUR - 05/13/2009 12:27 PM
While this was rumored a couple of days ago already on some websites, today the final verdict is in. The European Commission has imposed a massive fine of
Where do the huge EU fines go? - 05/22/2008 03:26 PM
In the aftermath of the EU versus Microsoft decision, you'd expect Microsoft's rivals to be looking at a huge payday. But while the EU found that Microsoft's actions did indeed harm its rivals, it has...
Ancient Guru
Posts: 9543
Joined: 2010-05-22
By giving them a choice to start with.
It says so in the first post.
Member Guru
Posts: 97
Joined: 2012-11-10
Being a linux user, I find the joke "the only thing IE is good for is to download another browser" to be extra amusing since it seems to be a Windows specific problem (I think Mac users can get other browsers in the app store). MS could offer a tool to let users download what they want.
Anyways how exactly do they come up with these numbers for these anticompetitive lawsuits?
Maha Guru
Posts: 1305
Joined: 2011-05-19
The thread on BBC News made me laugh.
Stifling competition by providing their own browser? Well how are users supposed to browse the internet which is the whole point of a PC or download other browsers?
i concur! it's not hard to remove IE after you choose another if you want to, maybe to deal with the EU regulators they should have shipped it with no browser. Sorry, you can't get on the internet because of some crazy fairness policies. OVER REGULATION KILLS INVENTION. oh, and over here (US) we have are own insane little regulator, Mayor Bloomberg, who now wants to ban earbud headphones. He would do great over in the EU
Ancient Guru
Posts: 3434
Joined: 2006-10-11
i don't understand why they have to be given a choice. this is retarded. did people go after the iphone for only offering safari by default? like wat?
Ancient Guru
Posts: 9543
Joined: 2010-05-22
Easy.
Have installers for more than one browser, of the versions available at the time of release.
Maha Guru
Posts: 1194
Joined: 2006-05-18
The whole thing is retarded.
Windows is a microsoft OS, its THEIR intellectual property, so why should they be forced to offer Browsers from competitors out of the box on THEIR OS?
I don't see anyone out there forcing software developers to make programs compatible with more than one brand of OS.
Ancient Guru
Posts: 2895
Joined: 2007-05-05
OSX ships with Safari and UBUNTU with Firefox as default, how is that different than shipping Windows with IE?
There are installers available to replace any of these, and it's not much different to search and install them via IE than how the other OS's offer the choice.
Windows 8 even shows the choice right from the beginning, so should EU start a to give Apple, all Linux distributions and Android a fine for hiding the choice?
Member Guru
Posts: 97
Joined: 2012-11-10
The whole thing is retarded.
Windows is a microsoft OS, its THEIR intellectual property, so why should they be forced to offer Browsers from competitors out of the box on THEIR OS?
I don't see anyone out there forcing software developers to make programs compatible with more than one brand of OS.
Because when you're on the verge of being a monopoly, it means decisions (like making IE the only option to start with) are anticompetitive. How would you feel if you made an amazing web browser better than IE in every way imagineable and you got little to no attention because people just go with the first thing they see, which in Windows' case is IE?
Bad competition means lack of innovation, and lack of innovation means you're going to be stuck with the same broken products for years. This is why AMD dropping out of the CPU market is a big deal, because Intel's prices will skyrocket and without competition they won't try very hard to push the limits. However, AMD is a prime example of how anticompetition can destroy a company.
Master Guru
Posts: 393
Joined: 2010-02-24
By giving them a choice to start with.
It says so in the first post.
Yup, but Windows 7 doesn't have an app store though, Windows 8 does.
Member Guru
Posts: 62
Joined: 2012-09-28
The whole thing is retarded.
Windows is a microsoft OS, its THEIR intellectual property, so why should they be forced to offer Browsers from competitors out of the box on THEIR OS?
I don't see anyone out there forcing software developers to make programs compatible with more than one brand of OS.
That's the same thing i thought, even though the first thing i do after a clean install is open IE and download Chrome, then unpin IE from the taskbar.
This is not retarded, this is insane and has no sense at all.
P.S. The whole competition crap reason is in fact...... total bull**** if you ask me....
Ancient Guru
Posts: 9543
Joined: 2010-05-22
See post #7
Master Guru
Posts: 562
Joined: 2005-05-15
By giving them a choice to start with.
It says so in the first post.
I thought if you buy windows you get calculator and minesweeper and browser as part of OS. Why the **** do i need os throwing me choices of calculators.. oh its browsers(as if that matters)
Ancient Guru
Posts: 9344
Joined: 2010-09-12
Easy.
Have installers for more than one browser, of the versions available at the time of release.
But that would be a smart thing to do. And we know that doing the smart thing is doing it wrong.

Ancient Guru
Posts: 6351
Joined: 2004-05-16
Because when you're on the verge of being a monopoly, it means decisions (like making IE the only option to start with) are anticompetitive. How would you feel if you made an amazing web browser better than IE in every way imagineable and you got little to no attention because people just go with the first thing they see, which in Windows' case is IE?
Bad competition means lack of innovation, and lack of innovation means you're going to be stuck with the same broken products for years. This is why AMD dropping out of the CPU market is a big deal, because Intel's prices will skyrocket and without competition they won't try very hard to push the limits. However, AMD is a prime example of how anticompetition can destroy a company.
I'm sorry but I disagree with almost everything in this post. If Microsoft was still performing bad business practices in order to secure their monopoly, then maybe I'd agree. But they've been losing marketshare for years now. And with the recent shift to Mobile computing, they are competing in an entirely new front where they are actually significantly behind. Further, where do you draw the line with this? You could the say the same thing about someone who writes a calculator app, or a notepad, or media player, or calendar app, or a weather app. How come all these get to be bundled but the browser gets singled out? Sounds to me like the competition in browser land as a much larger say than the little guys who make all the other apps -- which to me means the entire premise isn't about what's good for the user, but what's good for the other companies.
As for Intel vs AMD, Intel did play a role with anti-competitiveness but the FTC put a stop to that. Afaic AMD dug it's own grave when it purchased ATI. And Intel has found a new competitor anyway, ARM. Where just like Microsoft they find themselves competing on a completely different field. And if Intel ever does stagnant, the same thing will happen to them that happened to companies like Blackberry. They will get beat. Someone, somewhere will see an opening to start something new and revolutionize the industry.
The only time government should step in, is like I said, when the FTC hit Intel in 2009. They were purposely cutting off access to rival chip makers in specific marketplaces. Like if Microsoft were actively preventing firefox and chrome to run, then yeah I agree, hit them with fines. But forcing them to promote competitor software is just nonsense.

Master Guru
Posts: 393
Joined: 2010-02-24
The thread on BBC News made me laugh.
The case dates back to 2007 when Opera - a Norwegian web-browser maker - complained Microsoft was stifling competition on PCs by bundling Internet Explorer with its operating system.
Stiffling competition by providing their own browser? Well how are users supposed to browse the internet which is the whole point of a PC or download other browsers?