Dont want E

m4cc45 said:
The draft budget for the EU is 139 billion euros. How can they survive with such a massive ask in these times? Obviously the only way they can survive is fining companies massive amounts.



M.
Click to expand...

Or through government contributions like that have for ages. thats the point of these fines, they distribute back to the consumer via lower taxes.

As for other forms of punishment, the only thing viable is jail time for those involved. However, provong who is involved is much harder in non cartel cases(which is difficult in itself). What other forms of action are there?
 
Last edited:
lert's be honest, all the OEM's are going to just install IE anyway

they're be seriously retarded not to.

personally I hate IE, but it's required by a lot of software, OEM's want as few calls as possible, installing IE in the factory is the most sensible move for them. it would be suicide to not install it
 
OEM IE installs will be the norm anyway just like how they install Norton and all that other crap as standard :p
 
EU should stop interfearing :( I use IE (just to get better internet browsers) and when FF goes funny
 
ghost101 said:
Or through government contributions like that have for ages. thats the point of these fines, they distribute back to the consumer via lower taxes.

As for other forms of punishment, the only thing viable is jail time for those involved. However, provong who is involved is much harder in non cartel cases(which is difficult in itself). What other forms of action are there?
Click to expand...

How about restricting who they can trade with - putting sanctions on that? Forcing the manufacturer to comply without fining them (i.e. remove it from the next version or we will fine you). No they put both feet in and take as much cash as possible.

I've yet to see these lower taxes for people in the EU? I've yet to see lower prices because of it.

Even though I have read the articles on the EU's website. I still fail to see why they need 139 Billion Euros to do there work. Thats an unbelievable amount of money to waste.



M.
 
God, there are a lot of ignorant, ill-informed and undereducated people on this forum. Abuse of monopoly power is a bad thing. The way that Microsoft is voluntarily supplying a product that gives a greater user choice, therefore encouraging innovation and competition is a good thing. I think over the past few years they have become a better company with Google, Apple and the open source crowd providing compelling alternatives to Microsoft products.
 
roadie said:
God, there are a lot of ignorant, ill-informed and undereducated people on this forum. Abuse of monopoly power is a bad thing. The way that Microsoft is voluntarily supplying a product that gives a greater user choice, therefore encouraging innovation and competition is a good thing. I think over the past few years they have become a better company with Google, Apple and the open source crowd providing compelling alternatives to Microsoft products.
Click to expand...

No one is stopping you installing another browser. What they were doing is providing an easy and convenient way to get on to the internet.

Now they are not providing a browser. So which is better? Supplying nothing or something? It's there OS why can't they put whatever browser they want with it? Why can Apple do this? Why do Apple get away with forcing ipod users to use iTunes? Is that not a monopoly?

What the EU have forced European customers to do is get there own browser and I guarantee you people will get browsers which have virus's, trojans or other malware from dodgy websites.



M.
 
roadie said:
Abuse of monopoly power is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

No one is saying otherwise. But that is not an abuse of monopoly power.
Bribing firms to one ship Windows was. But Including an IE is not.
What else Shoudl they take out.

Windows movie maker? notepad? calculator? photo viewer? How about Direct X, paint?

It's a totally stupid ruling.
 
m4cc45 said:
How about restricting who they can trade with - putting sanctions on that?
Click to expand...

So your punishing both the firm and consumers to an extent that would be much worse than the fine itself. I see no logic in that. It also destroys free market mechanisms.

Forcing the manufacturer to comply without fining them (i.e. remove it from the next version or we will fine you). No they put both feet in and take as much cash as possible.
Click to expand...

So you want a second strike rule? There is no need. Antitrust regulation is already written. If you want a second strike rule then it would actually be in firms best interests to break competition rules once. the cournot nash equilibrium would actually be higher anti-trust occurences.

I've yet to see these lower taxes for people in the EU? I've yet to see lower prices because of it.
Click to expand...

The very fact that your taxes didnt rise as much as needed to fund the EU budget is the cut.

Even though I have read the articles on the EU's website. I still fail to see why they need 139 Billion Euros to do there work. Thats an unbelievable amount of money to waste.
M.
Click to expand...

Again, your opinion is worthless. Do an audit of EU finances and come back to me. Of course I'm sure there are some innefficiencies, but it has nothing to do with competition legislature and so I don't see what you are trying to say. You want to remove all efficiencies, then remove EU expenditure and also all domestic taxation.
 
Last edited:
ghost101 said:
Or through government contributions like that have for ages. thats the point of these fines, they distribute back to the consumer via lower taxes.
Click to expand...

This is a complete failure of economics. The money for the fines starts with the consumers (aka the taxpayers), MS incorporate the cost of the fines into the cost of them doing business. They then skim a bit off, then the EU takes it and skims some more off. The end result is and can only be an inefficient usage of cash compared to either taxation (which is still generally very inefficient) or consumer spending which is much better.

The consumer pays more in the fines model than the direct taxation model, they just pay it through an third party. The solution to lower taxes is to stop governments spending money on pointless crap that can be better handled by anyone but the state.
 
It will be annoying not having a copy of IE around to download Firefox with, but nothing a start>run>cmd ftp ftp.mozilla.org wont fix.
 
sldsmkd said:
It will be annoying not having a copy of IE around to download Firefox with, but nothing a start>run>cmd ftp ftp.mozilla.org wont fix.
Click to expand...

:p

but to a novie thats quite hard for them to do untill they learn, its better to supply something which can be accessed by all parties rather than just hte advanted.. EU are a bunch of idoits what else are they going to ruin :mad:
 
Mattey1 said:
I wasn't trying to argue with you, all I'm saying is that if Microsoft want to include a browser in their operating system they should be allowed, just like Apple are allowed to include their browser in their operating system.

It shouldn't be the way the EU is dictating it. Not when other companies are doing it also, If MS aren't allowed to include it then the same should be happening to Apple as well no two ways about it.

Just my two cents & I'm not trying to provoke an argument from you.
Click to expand...

It's not the fact that MS are doing it is the fact that they have the dominant market position from which to do it.

Had they only 20% of the OS market the commission would not have fined them or even brought the case. The case is not only about IE but about abusing your market position to stifle competition in another market ie using the OS to stifle browser competition.


The mere fact that this is happening might encourage other software companies to create a browser something they wouldn't bothered doing in the first place. So in fact we might even see a payware browser that's faster than any of the freeware ones currently available. :cool:
 
Dolph said:
This is a complete failure of economics. The money for the fines starts with the consumers (aka the taxpayers), MS incorporate the cost of the fines into the cost of them doing business. They then skim a bit off, then the EU takes it and skims some more off. The end result is and can only be an inefficient usage of cash compared to either taxation (which is still generally very inefficient) or consumer spending which is much better.

The consumer pays more in the fines model than the direct taxation model, they just pay it through an third party. The solution to lower taxes is to stop governments spending money on pointless crap that can be better handled by anyone but the state.
Click to expand...

Lump sum taxes/fines shouldn't (the most basic result of economic theory). It is the most efficient method of taxation. It does not affect efficient level of production or the efficient price.

Think of it as a massive dividend payment which went directly to the ECC. Only shareholders lose.

The second fundumental welfare theorem of economics (most often applied to taxation on people) tells us that a lump sum tax rather than a labour(or profit in this case) dependent tax would result in distribution of income with no change in labour supply(production level) i.e. the first fundumental welfare theorem of economics would hold.

This was the idea behind the poll tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...omics#Proof_of_the_second_fundamental_theorem - The general equilibrium proof looks heavy but its pretty simple if you've done a first year university level maths module. Its just using mathematical notation to write a lot more quickly what can be said in words.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom