Industry trade groups weighed in on Wednesday on the European Commission's decision to levy a historic $357m antitrust fine against Microsoft.
The organisations fell into two camps in their opinion of the penalty imposed on Microsoft for non-compliance with the Commission's 2004 antitrust order to share and licence protocol information with rivals. One side said the move will discourage US businesses in Europe, while the other said it sets a precedent that will help smaller software companies.
Americans for Technology Leadership, which lists Microsoft as a founding member, expressed concern that the Commission's action will dampen technology companies' desire to seek a market-leading role in Europe. It also said the ruling will lead to uncertainty on businesses' part about how to work with European regulators.
"All American companies doing business in Europe should be concerned," Jim Prendergast, the executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership, said in a statement. "This development makes clear that successful American companies will face a higher regulatory standard in Europe and that their entire global business strategy may be hostage to the whims of a few European regulators."
The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), a third-party intervener that testified during a Microsoft and European Commission hearing in April, echoed those comments and described the Commission's fines as "arbitrary and capricious".
On the other side, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) and the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), praised the regulatory body for pursuing the issue, stressing the benefit to third-party software makers.
"The precedent set by this case will be vital for the viability of future software products likewise dependent on full interoperability with Microsoft's interlocking monopoly systems," Thomas Vinje, legal counsel for ECIS, said in a statement.
The SIIA, meanwhile, said it hoped that Microsoft's interoperability documentation would be "forthcoming promptly".
ECIS, whose membership includes a number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks, filed a complaint with the Commission in February over making sure third-party software would be fully interoperable with Microsoft Office.
In the antitrust case, Microsoft faces a drop-dead deadline of 24 July to deliver the last set of protocols to the European Commission, which is then expected to take another six weeks to vet out the accuracy and completeness of the material.
Talkback
There is no such thing as "the" global strategy. Strategies differ depending on the region and need to take into account the laws and practices of said region. That American body makes it sound like American businesses should only be subject to laws and regulations like those in America, which smacks of arrogance.
Quote, "...will lead to uncertainty on businesses' part about how to work with European regulators.", unquote.
Uncertainty indeed. Now companies will have to rethink their "global strategies" to play by the rules or else.
I can see how that may upset some companies. How dare things like regulations and laws stand in the way of their "global strategies". Gee, what's next. Complaints that they must actually work for their money? Come up with a indeed better product? Keep on delivering?
It boils down quite simply. If a certain area is good enough to make profit from that at least have the guts to play by their rules. Or find somebody else that will. Or get out and see how soon someone else will fill the gap and the profits.