|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
It seems also there's another layer of EU justice above this court
that MS can lunch a few lawyers on...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hairbear on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
"Thanks, European Commission, for nothing. "
Well, all I can say is ... at least they did SOMETHING ... which is more than
can be said for the Government of the United States who gave them little more
than a slap on the back of the legs followed by 'don't cry ... mummy loves
you'.
Also, Microsoft now have to be very careful not to get caught again as AFAIAA,
the repeat offender fines escalate very steeply for this sort of offence within
the E.U
hairbear
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
Other regulars have already posted comments on this development that
offer the
view that Microsoft will try and pay the fine by donating product
(i.e. Windows
software) of the relevant market value.
Given the cost of a CD [a
few cents] against what they charge for the software
[hundreds of Euros], this
would be an easy out for Microsoft.
They got away with that in the
US, but it was part of a settlement at a time when the DOJ was not interested in
pursuing harsh penalties anymore.
I have not read about a case where the EU
commission accepted such pseudo-penalties yet. If they fine a company xx €, they
mean xx Euros.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- That's it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- That's it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- That's it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:47 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
Should we consider that the real target of the appeals was to try to undermine
the legal interpretations and enforcement processes - dressed up as an attack on
the level of fine? If so, it could be an SCO moment because the law and process
basis has been confirmed by all the courts. The ECJ is unlikely to reverse and
could augment the penalties.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
You are mistaken if you think MS is laughing.
They stand on their heads to avoid being
found guilty of antitrust violations.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
| It may not be quite as bad as that. The original fine, back in 2004, was
reportedly paid into an escrow account
out-law.com
I would imagine
that the escalating fines were also paid into an escrow account too, but I
couldn't see anything reporting that.
Also, depending on local corporation
tax rules... probably Ireland for Microsoft, not all fines are tax deductible
expenses. In the UK, HMRC states
that
A fine incurred as a result of a trader's infraction of the
law is not allowable on the authority of CIR v Alexander von Glehn Ltd [1920]
12TC232, as it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the
trade.
I do know that Ireland is quite... well, let's say easy
on corporation tax so it is possible that Irish tax authorities will not treat
the EU fine in the same way that HMRC would do.
j
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
That protracted delay is probably the best argument for charging and
calvulaying interest the way credit card companies do.
Even 18% APR on the average daily balance of the previous 90 days, usually
will push the borrower into bankruptcy, if unpaid for more three years,
regardless of the initial amount that was owed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
