Microsoft Settles Antitrust Case With EU

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFVrAqcMgLR4&pos=6' target='_blank'>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...rAqcMgLR4&pos=6</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Microsoft Corp. ended more than a decade of antitrust disputes with the European Union by giving consumers a choice among Web browsers. Microsoft's Windows operating system will include a screen that gives users the option of using rival browsers, the European Commission said in a statement. The so-called choice screen, available by mid-March, lets users turn off Microsoft's Internet Explorer and install an alternative."</em></p><p>Here's why this is mostly an empty victory for the EU: the people who don't know any better, the people who have no idea what Firefox, Opera, or Chrome are, will click on the little blue "e" that they recognize. The people who are experienced enough to use alternate browsers will install whatever they want. So how exactly is this a victory for the EU? I'm just glad it's settled - Microsoft doesn't need distractions like this slowing it down.</p>

[Bob Christensen]

You're absolutely correct--from the consumer point of view. But I'm just cynical enough to think the EU had--and has--other objectives in their "anti-competition" lawsuits

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Personally I don't think it's bad... just that it's late. Which I suppose, makes it bad.

[Jason Dunn]

But I'm just cynical enough to think the EU had--and has--other objectives in their "anti-competition" lawsuits

Oh, you mean like getting billions from Microsoft, and that money never flowing back to EU consumers in any tangible way? :rolleyes:

[ptyork]

It's just so darn irrelevant. I mean, "which of these free browsers do you want!?!" It was never a relevant argument, or at least it was irrelevant by the time the complaints were filed since just about every browser was already free by then. I guess the EU decided they didn't like MS's "borderline" anti-competitive behavior and just struck as hard as possible when they crossed over the border.

But in the end, it's the consumer that suffered from all of this. All consumers, not just the Europeans. Resources were wasted and developer mind-share distracted and re-tasked. We're all worse off for their actions of the past decade. MAYBE Microsoft was a little wrong a decade ago, but the EU has been very wrong for 9+ years. In this case, a rational analysis says "fine and move on," especially when it was clear that there indeed was no browser market. Not "fine, fine, fine, seek untenable remedy, fine, seek further remedies, fine, fine, sigh."

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for Brussels...no more of their damn sprouts for me!! :)

[randalllewis]

I am in full agreement that this settlement will have little impact on the consumer market. I doubt any computer OEM will market a model without IE included any more than they have without Windows Media Player. This decision puts an easy to use interface on what is an existing consumer "choice" but is not worth much more than that. Forcing Microsoft to include icons and links to competitors programs on a screen that is seen once is not much of a burden.

It may seem unfair but the company was found to have violated both EU and US anti-trust laws and so they do receive a greater level of scrutiny.

I am pleased the company has taken the approach of trying to cooperate with regulators rather than its previous combative approach which cost it billions in cash and in bad public relations. It was Microsoft that made the decisions that resulted in all that cash going to the EU in the earlier case.

Is there some Euro protectionism going on here? Absolutely. The EU is no different in that regard than the US. It is also important to remember we had an 8 year period in the US where there was little or no government scrutiny of big business acquisitions and business practices. This created a vacuum that European politicans and bureaucrats were all to eager to fill.

[ptyork]

It is also important to remember we had an 8 year period in the US where there was little or no government scrutiny of big business acquisitions and business practices.

I'm curious if that was just your impression based on FUD or fact? Admittedly I only did a brief scan, but I can find no evidence of any significant dips or bumps in anti-trust case filings here:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases.html

The Sherman Act is apolitical and an essential part of operating a truly free market. And support for big business is certainly not the domain of one party or administration versus another. That has everything to do with money and (obviously related) lobbying, a force that neither party is immune to.

As for M&A, to assert that the last 8 years saw a decrease in scrutiny is also silly. 14 of the top 20 M&A transactions in the past 20 years happened during the second Clinton administration, mostly horrendous dot.com/telecom related mergers, though it also included such winners as Exxon-Mobil and BP-Amoco. I'm not pointing a finger at Clinton for being M&A-happy, just that this again has very little to do with transitive, administration-level policy.

As for breakups, one should argue that Republicans (or at least "real" Republicans, which doesn't much include the last administration) are far more fervent in their desire to break up large, near-monopolistic conditions. Both good breakups & deregulations (like the original AT&T breakup) and ill advised, fake ones (like stupid breakups of state-level natural gas companies) are sacred mantra of fiscal, free-market conservatism.

Scrutiny of business practices? Well, I suppose that refers to regulation. And in that, you are probably right. But most regulation does far more damage than good--not to be argued here as a nod to the fact that this IS a tech blog, but rest assured I could. ;) But, yes, while the Bush administration did not drastically increase regulation (it didn't decrease it), it did not maintain the momentum created by the Clinton administration. So yes, I'll give you one nod. Well, actually many nods since most of what you said was true. I just had to call you out on that one sentence. ;)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Mmm. No regulation, leading to the mess that is the US telco industry?

[EscapePod]

Too bad for Microsoft. I'm not a fan of the EU. They better keep their grubby paws off my ubuntu. It comes bundled with a browser, email, a painting program, a music player (although it doesn't play MP3's out of the box).

[/sarcasm] (sort of)

[randalllewis]

I would be happy to argue the comment that "most regulation does far more damage than good" but that isn't the purpose of this website and I am too comfortable sitting here in my home built to government regulations using the electricity which connects me to the (government created) Internet using electricity that doesn't electrocute me because of government regulations. And boy could I go on and on and on. And please allow me to call you right back out on your claim that the previous administration didn't decrease business regulation. One can decrease regulation by repealing laws or agency rules. One can also decrease regulation by actually issuing new regulations which weaken or eliminate restrictions or safeguards. One can also decrease regulation by appointing people to regulatory agencies who don't believe in regulating. The Bush administration did all three.

[ptyork]

Mmm. No regulation, leading to the mess that is the US telco industry?

Maybe you're too young to remember telco regulation (or perhaps you're not from here), but we HAD regulation. We paid inflated fees for horrible customer service, had to rent our phones, and paid better than $2 per minute long distance rates to call 50 miles away. Strict regulation has it's place (it is necessary when barriers to entry dictate the maintenance of a monopoly or near-monopoly or when there's no transparency as to quality of services rendered--market forces can't play their role), but deregulation was the best thing to ever happen to the US telco industry, at least from a consumer perspective. It is far and away the most progressive utility in this country.

What regulations would you put in place (beyond what's already there, like universal service, TDD, etc.)?