Home Page
03. 2.2007 (previous | next)
Aw, You Didn’t Really Think the EU Was Going to Approve, Did You?

The EU is threatening to fine Microsoft again for failing to develop a pricing schedule for technology sharing that satisfies the EU's requirements.

And what were those requirements? Well, they are sort of like the Native American sacred sites that bedevil land developers in the U.S. -- many are so sacred that we can't tell you where they are, but we'll sue you if you hit one.

The EU's earlier judgment, 300 pages long, contained one sentence on protocol pricing, which said that they should be reasonable and non-discriiminatory. So Microsoft submitted 8,000 pages of technical documentation and 1,500 pages of information on prices, much of it developed by the accounting firm Price, Waterhouse, only to have the EU say: "No - that's not what we meant":

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said, “Microsoft has agreed that the main basis for pricing should be whether its protocols are innovative. The Commission's current view is that there is no significant innovation in these protocols. I am therefore again obliged to take formal measures to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations.”
I confess to bafflement. If the technology is not valuable, then why is the EU so determined that MS make it available? And if it is valuable, then why shouldn't a charge be based on a marketplace willingness to pay, not on an EU bureaucratic assessment of "innovation," an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As Sonia Arrison of the Pacific Research Institute noted last year, the game increasingly looks like a cynical expropriation of the property of successful U.S. companies.

If Eurocrats can force Microsoft to give up significant chunks of its valuable IP, there's no stopping them from doing likewise to other successful American companies. The next target may be Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL) Latest News about Apple, which recently got in a spat with French legislators when they passed a bill to force the sharing of iTunes code. And the problems don't end in Europe.

Korea, for instance, has already sicced its competition police on Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) Latest News about Qualcomm, Microsoft and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) Latest News about Intel and China is starting to re-examine its antitrust laws. What many countries are calling "competition policy" is starting to look a lot like anti-Americanism that specifically targets successful U.S. companies.

I am happy not to be employed in the Microsoft legal department; one of the most difficult things in dealing with Kangaroo courts is the need to keep a straight face and a deferential manner, lest they kick you even harder. I would have a problem.

posted by James DeLong @ 1:25 PM |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(3)


Comments

And how much money does PFF get from Microsoft to spout this nonsense?

What about the 'kangaroo court' that was the US anti-trust case against Microsoft?

Do you have any substantive calims that would back up what you saying? I have been following this case and others quite closely a Groklaw, and it is absolutely clear that Microsoft has dragged it feet as much as possible.

I would especially refer you to Andrew Tridgell's testimony, which was very convincing.

Posted by: enigma_foundry at March 6, 2007 9:08 PM

Enigma, its pretty obvious the EC is playing several *games* to make its members more competitive in the technology industries:

1)improve regulatory policy- great idea,
2)tout FOSS as a way to drive future enterprise- not a good idea, but its their choice,
3)slow down the large and successful foreign firm- and according to Neelie Kroes, this will save jobs in the EU. And she even admits it!! To call this a kangaroo court is to give it a compliment.

Hance Haney has written some good stuff on this- http://www.disco-tech.org/2006/07/eu_fining_successful_american.html

Posted by: Noel Le at March 6, 2007 9:48 PM

And my question was:

And how much money does PFF get from Microsoft to spout this nonsense?

And my second question is:

Why can't you answer my first Question?

Posted by: enigma_foundry at March 11, 2007 7:51 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page