Microsoft Board Sued Over $731 Million Fine By Antitrust Regulators Due To Technical Issue

12

Internet Explorer 11

Microsoft shareholder Kim Barovic has sued Microsoft board in federal court in Seattle on Friday. He accused Microsoft board for mishandling the error in EU antitrust compliance related to Internet Explorer. Even though Microsoft accounted that non-compliance is due to technical error, Kim needs more explanation on this.

In March last year, the European Union levied its largest ever antitrust fine against Microsoft for breaking a legally binding commitment made in 2009 to ensure that consumers in Europe had a choice of how they access the internet, rather than defaulting to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser. Its investigation found that updated software issued between May 2011 and July 2012 meant that 15 million users were not given a choice. It was the first time the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust authority, handed down a fine to a company for failing to meet its obligations.

In her lawsuit, Barovic says she asked Microsoft’s board to fully investigate how that mistake occurred and to take action against any directors or executives that had not performed their duties. She says Microsoft replied that it found no evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty by any current or former executives or directors.

Microsoft formally responded with the following statement,

“Ms. Barovic asked the board to investigate her demand and bring a lawsuit against the board and company executives,” said an emailed statement from Microsoft. “The board thoroughly considered her demand as she requested and found no basis for such a suit.”

Source: Reuters



About Author

Pradeep, a Computer Science & Engineering graduate.

  • Joe_HTH

    Another idiotic lawsuit clogging up the courts. People like this should have their ass kicked.

  • http://www.dalydose.com/ Jeff Daly

    With “friends” like this shareholder, who needs external competitors. What a moron.

  • Darth_Lord

    Honestly, I always wondered what the technical issue was and why did it take so long to resolve and resulting in such a large fine. This technical issue lasted for years. Why couldn’t they resolve it in one month. And yes I do own MSFT stock as well.

    @dalydose:disqus , why is he moron for wanting and explanation? the fine was for $730 million, and no explanation was given other than “technical issue”.

    • koenshaku

      First of all it is an absurd lawsuit that can compromise security of your operating not only compromise security of your operating system, but it confuses consumers and gives them in some cases a subpar browsing experience.

  • Nham Thien Duong

    Literally everyone else bundles their internet-browser with their O.S. ¿why aren’t Apple, Mozilla, Scroogle, and others sued for this? Apple bundles Safari with their iPods, iPhones, iPads, iBooks, and iMacs, Mozilla bundles Firefox with their Firefox O.S., Nokia bundles the Nokia Xpress browser with their Asha, Nokia X, and S40, and have costum browsers for S30, S60 (Symbian), and others, Scroogle bundles 2 different browsers with Android, the Google Android-browser, and Google Chrome, but Microsoft is the only company that gets sued over it…

    • LexicoRed

      Do some research before posting such nonsense, None of the other companies your whining about ever held a anywhere near 90% market share. Such statements makes all of us MS supporters look ignorant.

      • krayziehustler

        Google’s Android is close to world domination so he is not far off base. And also the fact that you can install any browser you want makes their suit ridiculous also. Not to mention that MS now has to promote the use of competitors’ browsers. What other company has ever been forced to do something like this?

        • LexicoRed

          Android is nowhere close to any dominance. To make a statement is silly. Android has a has a strong position in mobile phone but that is just one category of PC devices that include desktops, laptops, tablets and hybrids. MS still has significant impact on those devices (except tablets where MS struggles).

          Yes other companies have been treated similar to MS when they was found using monopolistic market position for anti-competitive practices. Specificly you should research Sherman Act of 1890 and review IBM vs USA, Paramount Picture vs USA, USA vs Lowes Inc. as referring to the practice of “Tying”.

          This may help prevent misinformed post regarding this issue :)

        • LexicoRed

          Android is nowhere close to any dominance. To make a statement is silly. Android has a has a strong position in mobile phone but that is just one category of PC devices that include desktops, laptops, tablets and hybrids. MS still has significant impact on those devices (except tablets where MS struggles).

          Yes other companies have been treated similar to MS when they was found using monopolistic market position for anti-competitive practices. Specificly you should research Sherman Act of 1890 and review IBM vs USA, Paramount Picture vs USA, USA vs Lowes Inc. as referring to the practice of “Tying”.

          This may help prevent misinformed post regarding this issue :)

          • HTk_Joe

            @lexicored thank you for a consistently thoughtful post, i do not always agree with them though I can tell you have at least thought through your ideas.

            I have like Microsoft ever since I got into gaming, I like this site ever since I found it a while back but some of the stupidity people post is crazy. I not sure if the “tech press hates Microsoft” or the “google/apple/amazon sucks because…” stupidity is the worst but let’s just stop it.

          • Guest

            Yes but it is more fun to play “poor me” card!

        • LexicoRed

          Android is nowhere close to any dominance. To make a statement is silly. Android has a has a strong position in mobile phone but that is just one category of PC devices that include desktops, laptops, tablets and hybrids. MS still has significant impact on those devices (except tablets where MS struggles).

          Yes other companies have been treated similar to MS when they was found using monopolistic market position for anti-competitive practices. Specificly you should research Sherman Act of 1890 and review IBM vs USA, Paramount Picture vs USA, USA vs Lowes Inc. as referring to the practice of “Tying”.

          This may help prevent misinformed post regarding this issue :)