Cringely:
'nuf said.
Take this example of the European Union fining Microsoft. It looks tough, but Microsoft gets to appeal, remember, and this particular part of the EU bureaucracy has been reversed on appeal two out of the last three times. So whatever the fine, Microsoft has two-to-one odds of not having to pay it, or at least of having it substantially reduced. And while the fine looks like a lot of money, to Microsoft it isn't. That $600 million is the amount by which Microsoft increases its cash hoard in TWO WEEKS. Even if the EU had hit Microsoft with its maximum allowable fine of 10 percent of gross global turnover or about $3 billion, it wouldn't have mattered. Paying a $3 billion fine to keep moving a $10 billion annual European cash machine that yields $7 billion in annual profits is a no-brainer. Would you pay $3 billion knowing that doing so would bring in a net profit of $4 billion PER YEAR, especially given the likelihood that the final judgement would be reduced or eliminated entirely? OF COURSE you'd pay the $3 billion, anyone in that position would. And nobody in that position, having paid the $3 billion (or $600 million) would put much effort into real compliance, since THAT's the thing that threatens profits, not paying artificially-capped fines.
So Microsoft will pay the European fine, which will have no impact on their behavior. They will appeal the decision, which will freeze any real enforcement action and effectively authorize continuation for another two to five years of otherwise proscribed behavior while the appeal moves forward. And if its European appeal fails, Microsoft will still be $8-20 billion ahead of where it might be had they actually attempted some version of compliance, which they won't. By that time, too, enough will have changed that Microsoft will have good grounds for arguing that it’s a different world and just maybe all parties should start again from scratch.
Much the same thing is happening in the U.S., too.
'nuf said.