Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU

krw <krw DeleteThis @att.bizzzz> wrote:
> In article <_6qdndOmDLa0oHLb4p2dnAA DeleteThis @giganews.com>, bbbl67 DeleteThis @yahoo.com
> says...
> > MS will have to pay $690M to the EU for non-compliance of their previous
> > judgement (will MS even notice such piddly amounts?). This could set a
> > precedent for similar cases before the EU, like the one against Intel.
>
> If you believe $690M is a piddling amount, why do you think Intel
> would care about equivalent piddling amounts?

M$ is more cash rich, and in a less capital intensive business.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

In article <7btvs4xu7t.ln2 RemoveThis @mail.sfchat.org>, archmage RemoveThis @sfchat.org
says...
> krw <krw RemoveThis @att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > In article <_6qdndOmDLa0oHLb4p2dnAA RemoveThis @giganews.com>, bbbl67 RemoveThis @yahoo.com
> > says...
> > > MS will have to pay $690M to the EU for non-compliance of their previous
> > > judgement (will MS even notice such piddly amounts?). This could set a
> > > precedent for similar cases before the EU, like the one against Intel.
> >
> > If you believe $690M is a piddling amount, why do you think Intel
> > would care about equivalent piddling amounts?
>
> M$ is more cash rich, and in a less capital intensive business.

So why would you believe a slap on the wrist, if you believe $69M is
(to M$), would hurt Intel any more than M$?

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

krw <krw.DeleteThis@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> So why would you believe a slap on the wrist, if you
> believe $69M is (to M$), would hurt Intel any more than M$?

It wouldn't, of course. However, Intel and MSFT appear to
have totally different ethics wrt DoJ and legal compliance:
Intel may push the line, but when caught over will make
reasonable efforts to stop.

MSFT does not and appears to treat it all as a big game.
They do not appear to understand the purpose and method of law
is deterrence and that the authorities have legitimacy. Perhaps
the corruptibility and other buffoonery of the legislators and
bureaucrats leads them to wishful thinking the purpose and system
itself is contemptible since some individuals are.

Regardless, both are quintessentially criminal mindsets
and rationalizations and earn MSFT the "evil" sobriquet.
And when deterrence totally fails, the big guns [breakup]
come out. Maybe they do and just don't care for the long-term.
That too is criminal hallmark, but not uniquely so.

-- Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

On Sep 27, 6:31 pm, krw <k....TakeThisOut@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> If you believe $690M is a piddling amount, why do you think Intel
> would care about equivalent piddling amounts?

Because in the case of Intel, they're talking about billions of
dollars, since the fine can be upto 10% of their annual revenue. Now
whether they're actually going to fine them that much, we don't know,
but until there is a ruling issued, the potential fines can be
billions of dollars.

BBC NEWS | Business | EU outlines Intel 'market abuse'
"Regulators have the power to fine Intel up to 10% of annual turnover
if they find it guilty of stifling competition."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6918975.stm
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

In article <cksLi.1132$sw6.866@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
redelm.RemoveThis@ev1.net.invalid says...
> krw <krw.RemoveThis@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> > So why would you believe a slap on the wrist, if you
> > believe $69M is (to M$), would hurt Intel any more than M$?
^ a '0' slipped down between the keys, somewhere
> It wouldn't, of course. However, Intel and MSFT appear to
> have totally different ethics wrt DoJ and legal compliance:
> Intel may push the line, but when caught over will make
> reasonable efforts to stop.
>
> MSFT does not and appears to treat it all as a big game.
> They do not appear to understand the purpose and method of law
> is deterrence and that the authorities have legitimacy. Perhaps
> the corruptibility and other buffoonery of the legislators and
> bureaucrats leads them to wishful thinking the purpose and system
> itself is contemptible since some individuals are.

I don't know if you're trying to argue with me or not; the attempt
failed.

I agree, which is why I don't believe a huge fine is in order (for
Intel). Money isn't a disincentive for the M$ boys either.

> Regardless, both are quintessentially criminal mindsets
> and rationalizations and earn MSFT the "evil" sobriquet.
> And when deterrence totally fails, the big guns [breakup]
> come out. Maybe they do and just don't care for the long-term.
> That too is criminal hallmark, but not uniquely so.

I don't think even a breakup could alter their mindset, indeed it may
let it loose. The worst thing might be to let the castle rot from
within and crumble under its own weight. Vista seems to be a giant
step in that direction.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

In article <1191094637.131402.195310.DeleteThis@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
yjkhan.DeleteThis@gmail.com says...
> On Sep 27, 6:31 pm, krw <k....DeleteThis@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > If you believe $690M is a piddling amount, why do you think Intel
> > would care about equivalent piddling amounts?
>
> Because in the case of Intel, they're talking about billions of
> dollars, since the fine can be upto 10% of their annual revenue. Now
> whether they're actually going to fine them that much, we don't know,
> but until there is a ruling issued, the potential fines can be
> billions of dollars.

It'll never happen. M$ has done far worse things than Intel and has
been caught (and released) many times.

> BBC NEWS | Business | EU outlines Intel 'market abuse'
> "Regulators have the power to fine Intel up to 10% of annual turnover
> if they find it guilty of stifling competition."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6918975.stm

Sorry, I'm not buying. Even the EU isn't that brain-dead.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

krw wrote:
> It'll never happen. M$ has done far worse things than Intel and has
> been caught (and released) many times.
>
>> BBC NEWS | Business | EU outlines Intel 'market abuse'
>> "Regulators have the power to fine Intel up to 10% of annual turnover
>> if they find it guilty of stifling competition."
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6918975.stm
>
> Sorry, I'm not buying. Even the EU isn't that brain-dead.


I don't think the EU is going to charge it that much either. However I
think it might be far worse for Intel, it may have to have its contracts
inspected by the EU from that point forwards. And it will have an AMD
civil suit in Europe which would likely introduce all of the evidence
from the anti-trust ruling. That's what's happening in Japan at this moment.

Yousuf Khan
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU 

krw <krw.DeleteThis@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> I don't know if you're trying to argue with me or not;
> the attempt failed.

Darn! USENET privileges and rewards argument

> I don't think even a breakup could alter their mindset,
> indeed it may let it loose. The worst thing might be to let
> the castle rot from within and crumble under its own weight.
> Vista seems to be a giant step in that direction.

Agreed! (darn again:) MS causes itself far more damage
than anyone else could. While the [slow] collapse is
coming, leaving the rapacity unchecked encourages others.

-- Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Microsoft loses appeal of judgement in EU