|
Authored by: stegu on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:22 AM EDT |
It's a bit sad that they don't see the easy
and obvious way out: stop breaking the law.
Naah, kidding. They couldn't stop if their
life depended on it -- which is clearly
demonstrated by them not stopping now that
their life really does depend on it. If they
don't change, they might go out with a bang
instead of with a whimper, but perhaps they
prefer to die fighting than to slowly rot away
after accepting a defeat and failing to compete
fairly?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
1. 2011 by the Numbers
Q1: Revenue: $16.20 Billion; Net
Income $5.41 Billion
Q2: Revenue: $19.95 Billion; Net Income
$6.63 Billion
Q3: Revenue: $16.43 Billion; Net Income $5.23
Billion
Q4: Revenue: $17.37 Billion; Net Income $5.87
Billion
2011 Totals: $69.95 Billion; Net Income $23.14
Billion
The above is just one of the 4 financial years that have
elapsed since the case started. In this one year, Microsoft's revenues were a
shade under $70 Billion, their net Income more than $23 Billion. The EU
fine of Eu860 [for the sake of simplicity let's assume approximate parity with
the dollar] equates to
3.7%. Yes, less than 4%. Their figures have been
variable across the 4 years but grant me the flexibility to approximate this
out: averaged over 4 years this fine is less than 1% of net
earnings.
2. Standing on their Heads
You make a good
and valid argument that Microsoft fought tooth and nail to overturn this
judgment against them. I think they were very successful.
Even if this
case cost them millions of dollars to defend (and it likely did), what would a
few tens of millions of dollars be against a fine of 860 Million Euros? Answer:
nothing... It was worth a punt.
3. Rolling Over
Serious
question: when was the last time that you heard of a finding or a ruling against
Microsoft where they shrugged and said, "It's a fair cop, your Honor, you've got
us bang to rights. We'll do what you say." ??? Answer: never. It is not in Bill
Gate's character to be able to do that. In the recent dispute by Novell, the
entire jury agreed MS were guilty and one hold-out juror disagreed over the
damages. Microsoft's response? they tried to get the entire case and findings
thrown out. There had been no dispute over the guilt part... That's how they
operate...
Do you remember the reports from the first anti-trust
investigation into Microsoft, where they had the DoJ and a bunch of Microsoft
lawyers in a room dealing. Apparent agreement would be reached, and the MS
lawyers would phone Bill, who would scream down the phone at them, sending them
back to the start of the negotiations...? Microsoft are Grand Masters at
negotiating with regulators and courts.
Result
You are
absolutely 100% correct to say that Microsoft fought vigorously over this
particular finding. 860 Million Euros is an awful lot of money and that warrants
the company take it very seriously indeed.
But you are quite, quite
wrong if you think that they see this as anything other than the cost of doing
business. Pick any competitor to a Microsoft product:
Linux as a
threat to Windows
LibreOffice as a threat to MS Office
PS/3 as a threat to the
X-Box
Ask yourself: Would Microsoft be willing to spend $860
Million to cripple, stymie, block, delay, destract or otherwise harm that
competition long enough to enable them to entrench their strangle-hold on the
relevant market?
You bet they would. That's good commercial sense to
them.
Does it bother them that they had to pay? Of course it does. Did
they factor this in when they chose that path of action. Absolutely they did.
This was a business decision. Events played out as expected and Microsoft paid.
But they paid a pittance. Not enough for them to notice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|