Microsoft v. Europe -- The Saga Continues
---
Here's the latest chapter in the ongoing harassment of Microsoft by the European Union:
The last time the E.U. bullied Microsoft around, the result was a product that no one bought. How does this "improve the competitive landscape"? How are European consumers (not businesses, but consumers) made better off by forcing Microsoft to flush CD-ROMs, man-hours and money down the w.c.?
But of course antitrust harassment of successful companies is never about consumers, regardless of any grandstanding to the contrary by politicians or bureaucrats. Antitrust protects not competition but competitors. And the only way to protect competitors is at the expense of consumers.
After a century of failed experiments in antitrust central planning, the United States has for the most part wizened up; antitrust review by agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission is minimal these days, and the most obnoxious manifestations of antitrust command-and-control — the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board — have been relegated to the Delete Key of History.
Hopefully Europe won't stay too unenlightened for too long. Too much is at stake for too many European consumers.
More thoughts at The Phalanx.
The European Union on Thursday threatened to fine Microsoft Corp. up to 2 million euros ($2.37 million) a day for failing to obey its 2004 antitrust ruling, accusing the company of intransigence in sharing information with competitors.When a government orders a company, upon pain of multi-million dollar fines, to allow its competitors to become "more compatible" with that company's products, then they cease to be "competitors" and become moochers.
...
The threat of new sanctions against Microsoft aims to force it to provide more detailed information so competitors' products can be made more compatible with Microsoft's Windows server operating system.
...
Brad Smith, Microsoft's top lawyer, accused the EU Commission of threatening the fine before it had even reviewed highly technical documentation he said Microsoft sent to European officials on Wednesday.
...
"Every time we do absolutely everything we've been asked to do, we're told that there's something else we need to do," Smith said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The last time the E.U. bullied Microsoft around, the result was a product that no one bought. How does this "improve the competitive landscape"? How are European consumers (not businesses, but consumers) made better off by forcing Microsoft to flush CD-ROMs, man-hours and money down the w.c.?
But of course antitrust harassment of successful companies is never about consumers, regardless of any grandstanding to the contrary by politicians or bureaucrats. Antitrust protects not competition but competitors. And the only way to protect competitors is at the expense of consumers.
After a century of failed experiments in antitrust central planning, the United States has for the most part wizened up; antitrust review by agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission is minimal these days, and the most obnoxious manifestations of antitrust command-and-control — the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board — have been relegated to the Delete Key of History.
Hopefully Europe won't stay too unenlightened for too long. Too much is at stake for too many European consumers.
More thoughts at The Phalanx.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Cost of Nothing and the Value of...
- No Good Product Goes Unpunished
- "No Company is Above the Law..."
- Microsoft v. Europe -- The Saga Continues
- Sony Downsizing Demonstrates Market Dynamism...
- What
ChannelService? WhatStationPrice? - E.U. to Force Microsoft to Sell a Product It Doesn't Make?
- What
ChannelCountry? WhatStationPrice?
Posted by Kip on
23 December 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



