Microsoft Faces $618m Fine In Eu Case

[Busyman]

The EU most likely took into account Microsoft's worldwide sales.

Microsoft adds that is unprecedented to take into account global operations when looking at one part of the world.

The EU also wants to restrict MS from bundling WMP into Windows sold in Europe and divulge technical information that will allow competitors to more easily design server software to link with Windows PCs.

Previously, the highest fine imposed was $571M against Hoffman-La Roche in 2001 for leading a vitamin cartel.

[vidcc]

The European courts see things differently from the US in that they look at fair practices for the consumer ahead of the company. This case looks like Ms is being punished for trying to create a monopoly, something viewed as being anti consumer and pro profiteer.
The size of the fine possibly does take microsofts worldwide turnover into account as it would be viewed as a punishment that would bite and not just something that would be shrugged off.
Personally I see nothing wrong with MS putting as much software into windows as they wish, however they are making it hard for other companies to make compatible software.
It is interesting that Microsoft are helping to fund the legal battle against linux and the use of code

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@23 March 2004 - 14:20
The European courts see things differently from the US in that they look at fair practices for the consumer ahead of the company. This case looks like Ms is being punished for trying to create a monopoly, something viewed as being anti consumer and pro profiteer.
The size of the fine possibly does take microsofts worldwide turnover into account as it would be viewed as a punishment that would bite and not just something that would be shrugged off.
Personally I see nothing wrong with MS putting as much software into windows as they wish, however they are making it hard for other companies to make compatible software.
It is interesting that Microsoft are helping to fund the legal battle against linux and the use of code
It's rather weird. All of this started when Netscape, who had 90% of the browser market, lost market share to Microsoft.

I wish Microsoft would bundle Office with Windows. Then I&#39;ll watch the government tell me that it&#39;s bad for the consumer <_< . What&#39;s also interesting is to see alot of CONSUMERS jump on the anti-Microsoft antitrust bandwagon when they can&#39;t even tell how they are being harmed. :lol: :lol:

btw Microsoft IS a monopoly. Who uses OS2/Warp? :lol: :lol: :lol:
also MS has 52 billion so this fine is still a scratch.

Regarding Linux, that was interesting that Microsoft was one of the first to pony a Linux license to SCO. SCO winning licensing from others would actually help MS due to the code no longer being open source.

[J'Pol]

On what are you basing your estimate that Microsoft has 52 Billion.

I assume you mean dollars, or do you mean another currency.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@23 March 2004 - 10:53
On what are you basing your estimate that Microsoft has 52 Billion.

I assume you mean dollars, or do you mean another currency.
it&#39;s commonly understood, in US dollars


i was surprised that you didn&#39;t know

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+23 March 2004 - 21:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 23 March 2004 - 21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@23 March 2004 - 10:53
On what are you basing your estimate that Microsoft has 52 Billion.

I assume you mean dollars, or do you mean another currency.
it&#39;s commonly understood, in US dollars


i was surprised that you didn&#39;t know [/b][/quote]
You say it&#39;s commonly understood that Microsoft is worth &#036;52 Billion.

Can you perhaps point me to some sort of evidence of this. It&#39;s not that I don&#39;t believe you, honestly. It&#39;s just that I find it staggering.

[james_bond_rulez]

ya i just heard this figure on an american news channel yesterday, they were reporting on this new and the anchor said " It&#39;s a small price for Microsoft to pay since it is a company that is worth 52 billion dollars"

I&#39;ll find a news source on this

I heard this on a Seattle news channel btw....

EDIT: damn it i can&#39;t find it atm, perhaps later... <_<

[J'Pol]

I&#39;m not sure, but I think you will find it has Cash Reserves of that level.

The fine is less than a months income to Microsoft, who made over &#036;32 Billion last year. It made &#036;11 Billion from Windows alone.

As far as I am aware Microsoft is not worth &#036;52 Billion, or anything even remotely close to it.

[james_bond_rulez]

holy shit r u saying it&#39;s worth more than that?

what is ur estimate of Microsoft&#39;s worth? :blink:

I am guessing half a trillion dollars.... <_<

[vidcc]

The figure would probably be an estimate based on the amount each share is worth on the stock market...hard assets both fixed and liquid such as property and inventory probably wouldn&#39;t be worth that amount, but you have to look at it as a going concern with worth in both customer base and good repute.
The tech industry although highly competetive and cut throat is the future for now so to me it&#39;s supprising that the estimate is ONLY &#036;52 billion for what is lets face it...the alpha male

[vidcc]

microsoft share value (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_company_file/509598.stm)

&#036;400 billion &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; now that&#39;s better Mind you this was a 1999 report :lol:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@23 March 2004 - 21:58
holy shit r u saying it&#39;s worth more than that?

what is ur estimate of Microsoft&#39;s worth? :blink:

I am guessing half a trillion dollars.... <_<
I&#39;m saying they have &#036;50billion in cash.

It is difficult to say how much they are are worth, but it will certainly be hundreds of billions. As my esteemed colleague says it is difficult to put any meaningful value on such a company. The share price fluctuates, the assets fluctuate, intellectual property is bought and sold all sorts of things happen.

The bottom line is that the fine is less than a months trading to the business, though in reality they could pay it from "readily available funds" if they so chose.

Again in reality Microsofts position in the world is poorly understood, because people think of it as synonymous with Bill Gates. He himself was at one time estimated as being worth the &#036;50billion you speak of. Again fairly meaningless tho&#39;, when you consider that a few years ago MS shares traded at &#036;90, but now I think it&#39;s about &#036;25.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

It would be funny if MS stopped selling programs and supporting programs in Europe, it would temporally cause kaos.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 00:22
It would be funny if MS stopped selling programs and supporting programs in Europe, it would temporally cause kaos.
No it wouldn&#39;t.

It is at best unlikely that even Microsoft could cause disruptions in space / time by not selling or supporting it&#39;s software.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+23 March 2004 - 19:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 23 March 2004 - 19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 00:22
It would be funny if MS stopped selling programs and supporting programs in Europe, it would temporally cause kaos.
No it wouldn&#39;t.

It is at best unlikely that even Microsoft could cause disruptions in space / time by not selling or supporting it&#39;s software. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think it would affect big corporation&#39;s who can afford to bring in some IT dudes to change to other systems. I do think it would have an effect on small business who can&#39;t afford to hustle in IT dudes since demand for them would increase causing there services to increase in cost.

Those who continued using it may find it hard to get security patches and other necessities, since MS knows the country of origin for every registered W O/S.

[jobauer]

the US dreamed it, the UE did it :P

The EU just ordered that Microsoft pay a fine of 497 millions euros (&#036;613m) for abusing its dominant market position.

It&#39;s a record for the EU in an antitrust case - but still not much for Microsoft.

But the best part is (from the BBC web site) :

"The UE has ordered Microsoft to reveal details of its Windows software codes within 120 days , to make it easier for rivals to design compatible products.

Microsoft must offer a stripped-down version of its Windows operating system minus the firm&#39;s MediaPlayer audiovisual software within 90 days ."

Of course, Microsoft has already said it will appeal, but still...
What do you think :) ?

PS. I hope it&#39;s the right place for posting this, sorry mods if it&#39;s not...

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

The EU&#39;s demands reminds me of a child&#39;s Christmas list. :D
I don&#39;t think they have the intestinal fortitude to enforce this and it&#39;s a bluff. Software can be quit elusive since it&#39;s not a physical object, if MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market. The US would never extradite MS executives for what it see&#39;s at free market capitalism.

[jobauer]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem...

[J'Pol]

The appeals will go on for months or years. However at the end of the day the EU will enforce the fine. MS will pay the fine, which may or may not be reduced as part of the appeal process.

They will also enforce the other punitive measures, albeit after the appeals process is complete.

When you talk about "all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market. " we are talking about a huge market. Bearing in mind that the vast bulk of software in the Far East is pirated, then they need the European Market.

No one said anything about extraditing anyone.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by jobauer+24 March 2004 - 12:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jobauer @ 24 March 2004 - 12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem... [/b][/quote]
In the USA if someone refuses a court order they are arrested, so if the EU court said cough up 600 million and they refused an arrest is about the only recourse possible besides seizing money assets but there in the USA.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+24 March 2004 - 21:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> @ 24 March 2004 - 21:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 12:55
<!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem...
In the USA if someone refuses a court order they are arrested, so if the EU court said cough up 600 million and they refused an arrest is about the only recourse possible besides seizing money assets but there in the USA. [/b][/quote]
Who would they arrest, the fine will be on the body corporate.

[shn]

To M&#036; it really does not matter as much.

Consumers will make up for any lose revenue when they buy a pre-built pc with pre-bundled software.

For most "typical" consumers they have no choice but to fatten the pockets of M&#036; because even if they never bought any M&#036; product again M&#036; still makes money from pre bundled software on crappy new computers that most of you buy.

Btw, my pc was pre-built (sorda)...........but the only pre-bundled software it came with was Red Hat Linux AS 2.1. ;)

I think it&#39;s better for most people to just face the fact the M&#036; 0wns you. And do not waste too much time concerning yourself with their revenue because you will never see any of it in your hands................ and you can take that to the bank. :)

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+24 March 2004 - 15:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 24 March 2004 - 15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 21:02

Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 12:55
<!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem...
In the USA if someone refuses a court order they are arrested, so if the EU court said cough up 600 million and they refused an arrest is about the only recourse possible besides seizing money assets but there in the USA.
Who would they arrest, the fine will be on the body corporate. [/b][/quote]
Since Corporations don&#39;t have a brain or any other means of self determination, a board of directors are appointed to take responsibility with full knowledge that they are personally responsible for it&#39;s actions. When your in court the board of directors play the role of guardian, similar to a parent being responsible for there child when it comes to civil suits. If MS refused to pay 600 million that would be viewed as an action of the board members so the directors would be charged with contempt of court and obstruction of the justice.

I never mentioned Bill Gates in my posts.

[J'Pol]

Neither did I mention Mr Gates, I am not aware if he is a director, only that he is a major shareholder. Didn&#39;t he resign as CEO a short while ago.

Which particular legal system / jurisdiction are you describing when you use this "guardian" analogy.

[Illuminati]

Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action. However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it. Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses. OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+24 March 2004 - 18:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 24 March 2004 - 18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Neither did I mention Mr Gates, I am not aware if he is a director, only that he is a major shareholder. Didn&#39;t he resign as CEO a short while ago.

[/b]

Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 12:55

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem...

<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@24 March 2004 - 18:21

Which particular legal system / jurisdiction are you describing when you use this "guardian" analogy. [/quote]



The USA and Canada


Should a corporation be treated as capable of committing a crime? Canada and other common law jurisdictions have answered this question with a clear "Yes". Under our Criminal Code, a "person" is defined, in section 2, to include "public bodies, bodies corporate, societies, [and] companies…" A corporation, therefore, is a person and may be held responsible for a crime.

Corporations, however, can only act through the people they employ and the law must look to the actions of individuals -- particularly those in charge of the company -- in order to determine the criminal liability of the corporation itself. It is this attribution of liability to the corporate entity that provides the focal point for the development of the law.

Within common law jurisdictions, several broad, and quite different, models have evolved. These include: the identification model, the longstanding approach in Canada and the United Kingdom; vicarious liability, still the premise for liability in the United States; and, the corporate culture model adopted most prominently in Australia.

In May 2000, the Home Office issued proposals

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/cc...troduction.html (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/ccl_rpm/discussion/introduction.html)


http://www.tdc.ca/liable.htm

http://www.mycorporation.com/corpdirecto.htm

[shn]

Originally posted by Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 17:34
Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.&nbsp;

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action.&nbsp; However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.&nbsp;

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it.&nbsp; Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses.&nbsp; OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.
Why don&#39;t you change that Red Hat Fedora link in your sig to Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/)

Fedora is not a replacement for Windows, then again neither is Lindows. :lol:

minesweeper (http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/xbomb/)........argh&#33;
minesweeper (http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~hartmann/sweep/).....argh&#33;&#33;
minesweeper + Unix/X solitaire games based on the ones available for Windows™ (http://www.delorie.com/store/ace/)....................................ARGH&#33;&#33;&#33; :ninja:

[jobauer]

Originally posted by Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 23:34
What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action.&nbsp; However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.
I agree with that. That&#39;s actually what I tried to point out in my first post :)

And yes, the UE is a huge market, which MS can&#39;t afford to lose

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by jobauer+24 March 2004 - 19:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jobauer @ 24 March 2004 - 19:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 23:34
What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action.&nbsp; However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.
I agree with that. That&#39;s actually what I tried to point out in my first post :)

And yes, the UE is a huge market, wich MS can&#39;t afford to lose [/b][/quote]
http://www.digital-law-online.com/misc/ogilvie.htm

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+25 March 2004 - 00:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> &#064; 25 March 2004 - 00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@24 March 2004 - 18:21
Neither did I mention Mr Gates, I am not aware if he is a director, only that he is a major shareholder. Didn&#39;t he resign as CEO a short while ago.



Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 12:55

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 March 2004 - 14:45
If MS refuses the demands all the EU can do is pull MS&#39;s products from the market
Well, don&#39;t you see it&#39;s a huge decision already ?

Who talked about extradition of Bill Gates and Co ? The UE sure can&#39;t, and doesn&#39;t want that. Still, if you&#39;re a company and you&#39;re fordidden to sell your products (and I remind you we haven&#39;t reach that point yet, and probably never will), it&#39;s a BIG problem...

<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@24 March 2004 - 18:21

Which particular legal system / jurisdiction are you describing when you use this "guardian" analogy.



The USA and Canada


Should a corporation be treated as capable of committing a crime? Canada and other common law jurisdictions have answered this question with a clear "Yes". Under our Criminal Code, a "person" is defined, in section 2, to include "public bodies, bodies corporate, societies, [and] companies…" A corporation, therefore, is a person and may be held responsible for a crime.

Corporations, however, can only act through the people they employ and the law must look to the actions of individuals -- particularly those in charge of the company -- in order to determine the criminal liability of the corporation itself. It is this attribution of liability to the corporate entity that provides the focal point for the development of the law.

Within common law jurisdictions, several broad, and quite different, models have evolved. These include: the identification model, the longstanding approach in Canada and the United Kingdom; vicarious liability, still the premise for liability in the United States; and, the corporate culture model adopted most prominently in Australia.

In May 2000, the Home Office issued proposals

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/cc...troduction.html (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/ccl_rpm/discussion/introduction.html)


http://www.tdc.ca/liable.htm

http://www.mycorporation.com/corpdirecto.htm [/b][/quote]


And what pray tell do the legal systems of the USA and Canada have to do with the EU.

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by shn+25 March 2004 - 01:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 25 March 2004 - 01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 17:34
Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.&nbsp;

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action.&nbsp; However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.&nbsp;

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it.&nbsp; Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses.&nbsp; OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.
Why don&#39;t you change that Red Hat Fedora link in your sig to Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/)

Fedora is not a replacement for Windows, then again neither is Lindows. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Why don&#39;t I change it to Mandrake? or SuSE? or Debian, Xandros or Slackware? ;)

All are distros are Linux. However, Red Hat is seen by a few as the popular distro closest resembling to Windows - Slangingly known as the Windows Junkie&#39;s/Linux Novice&#39;s My First Linux.

When I wrote the sig you see, I didn&#39;t write it to show off what open-source programs are Ub8r-gr8 (if you get my drift ;)). I wrote it to show readers how open-source programs can be bloody good alternatives to MS Software.

The techies can get into open-source with both hands but many casual users still need to try things out a step at a time :D

[shn]

Originally posted by Illuminati+24 March 2004 - 18:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Illuminati &#064; 24 March 2004 - 18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by shn@25 March 2004 - 01:01
<!--QuoteBegin-Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 17:34
Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action. However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it. Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses. OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.
Why don&#39;t you change that Red Hat Fedora link in your sig to Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/)

Fedora is not a replacement for Windows, then again neither is Lindows. :lol:
Why don&#39;t I change it to Mandrake? or SuSE? or Debian, Xandros or Slackware? ;)

All are distros are Linux. However, Red Hat is seen by a few as the popular distro closest resembling to Windows - Slangingly known as the Windows Junkie&#39;s/Linux Novice&#39;s My First Linux.

When I wrote the sig you see, I didn&#39;t write it to show off what open-source programs are Ub8r-gr8 (if you get my drift ;)). I wrote it to show readers how open-source programs can be bloody good alternatives to MS Software.

The techies can get into open-source with both hands but many casual users still need to try things out a step at a time :D[/b][/quote]
RedHat dude&#33; Get it right&#33;

Not Fedora. It&#39;s basically for developers and it will crash and you will have to fix it..................so can you fix it? :-"


Btw, you forgot Gentoo...............and about a thousand other distros. :)

[jobauer]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@25 March 2004 - 00:11

http://www.digital-law-online.com/misc/ogilvie.htm

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm
:huh: What&#39;s your point ? This thread is not about software copyrights from a philosophical, theoretical, technical or legal point of view...

we are -were- talking about the EU decision and its consequences for Microsoft.

I guess you deserve your name, huh <_<

Anyway, I&#39;m outta here. So long

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by shn+25 March 2004 - 01:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 25 March 2004 - 01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Illuminati+24 March 2004 - 18:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Illuminati &#064; 24 March 2004 - 18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by shn@25 March 2004 - 01:01

Originally posted by Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 17:34
Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.&nbsp;

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action.&nbsp; However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.&nbsp;

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it.&nbsp; Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses.&nbsp; OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.
Why don&#39;t you change that Red Hat Fedora link in your sig to Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/)

Fedora is not a replacement for Windows, then again neither is Lindows. :lol:
Why don&#39;t I change it to Mandrake? or SuSE? or Debian, Xandros or Slackware? ;)

All are distros are Linux. However, Red Hat is seen by a few as the popular distro closest resembling to Windows - Slangingly known as the Windows Junkie&#39;s/Linux Novice&#39;s My First Linux.

When I wrote the sig you see, I didn&#39;t write it to show off what open-source programs are Ub8r-gr8 (if you get my drift ;)). I wrote it to show readers how open-source programs can be bloody good alternatives to MS Software.

The techies can get into open-source with both hands but many casual users still need to try things out a step at a time :D[/b]
RedHat dude&#33; Get it right&#33;

Not Fedora. It&#39;s basically for developers and it will crash and you will have to fix it..................so can you fix it? :-"


Btw, you forgot Gentoo...............and about a thousand other distros. :) [/b]
Without trying to career too far off-topic...


Originally posted by shn
RedHat dude&#33;&nbsp; Get it right&#33;
http://www.redhat.com/img/hp_head_rhel2.gif
http://www.redhat.com/img/hp_rect_bluerhel_110x25.gif


Copyright © 2004 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Red Hat Magazine for Open Source Professionals and Advocates.

All taken from Red Hat&#39;s home page - Even the page&#39;s title...

Red Hat -- Linux, Embedded Linux and Open Source Solutions

I could probably go with a :P but it&#39;s in reality a case of "you say tomato, I say tomato".

<!--QuoteBegin-shn@
Not Fedora.&nbsp; It&#39;s basically for developers and it will crash and you will have to fix it..................so can you fix it?&nbsp; :-" [/quote]

True - Fedora is about as stable as a car with only one wheel (no scouse jokes please people... :-"). However, it looks like Red Hat Inc could be heading towards the Fedora version, abeit chances are it&#39;ll be under another name at the time. Which is why I put it in (future-proofing ;)), though I might be wrong :) I&#39;ll have a look at Fedora and see whether it should be replaced with the old stable Red Hat :)

I&#39;m not changing the Linux Distro link beyond that though if that&#39;s what you&#39;re looking for :P The distro selected can be argued constantly but like the choice of Windows vs Linux it&#39;s personal choice of the user in the end.

I agree myself that for experienced users there&#39;s a lot of distros better than Red Hat, but for the starter/casual users something that at least feels similar to Windows is something that may be easier to learn the basics of Linux about.

<!--QuoteBegin-shn
Btw, you forgot Gentoo...............and about a thousand other distros.&nbsp; :)[/quote]

Oh b***dy hell - You want me to take an eternity to type all of them in? :lol:

[shn]

Originally posted by Illuminati+24 March 2004 - 18:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Illuminati &#064; 24 March 2004 - 18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by shn+25 March 2004 - 01:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 25 March 2004 - 01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 18:18

Originally posted by shn@25 March 2004 - 01:01

Originally posted by Illuminati@24 March 2004 - 17:34
Fact is the fine doesn&#39;t mean much to Microsoft - It might be a lot to the EU and hopefully will go towards a few more projects on developing the Union (UK included I hope), but a company who&#39;s founding businessman is reputed to have enough wealth to buy a country is unlikely to be affected by an amount that big.

What will hurt Microsoft is the other actions - MS may (depends on the appeal) may to share parts of the code with competitors, MS may have to ship (at least in Europe) a version of Windows without any integrated media players, MS has offered the EU a compromise on where it will allow the feature for three selected media players to be shipped in Windows globally (i.e. not just in Europe)...the list goes on, but none of it is finalised until the EU gives the final action. However, one thing can be said - the EU&#39;s case against Microsoft affects Windows across the world, not just in Europe.

And some people say the Europeans don&#39;t do anything right :P

As for what might happen to small businesses if MS withdraws from Europe - There&#39;s very few other OSs that businesses might consider if you think about it. Apple Macs may be an option but the large costs in buying the hardware and the software will mean it&#39;d only really be for the professional/yuppie businesses. OS/2 might be an alternative but chances are that the businesses may go for a distro of Linux due to the popularity & support for it recently.
Why don&#39;t you change that Red Hat Fedora link in your sig to Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/)

Fedora is not a replacement for Windows, then again neither is Lindows. :lol:
Why don&#39;t I change it to Mandrake? or SuSE? or Debian, Xandros or Slackware? ;)

All are distros are Linux. However, Red Hat is seen by a few as the popular distro closest resembling to Windows - Slangingly known as the Windows Junkie&#39;s/Linux Novice&#39;s My First Linux.

When I wrote the sig you see, I didn&#39;t write it to show off what open-source programs are Ub8r-gr8 (if you get my drift ;)). I wrote it to show readers how open-source programs can be bloody good alternatives to MS Software.

The techies can get into open-source with both hands but many casual users still need to try things out a step at a time :D
RedHat dude&#33; Get it right&#33;

Not Fedora. It&#39;s basically for developers and it will crash and you will have to fix it..................so can you fix it? :-"


Btw, you forgot Gentoo...............and about a thousand other distros. :) [/b]
Without trying to career too far off-topic...


Originally posted by shn
RedHat dude&#33; Get it right&#33;
http://www.redhat.com/img/hp_head_rhel2.gif
http://www.redhat.com/img/hp_rect_bluerhel_110x25.gif


Copyright © 2004 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Red Hat Magazine for Open Source Professionals and Advocates.

All taken from Red Hat&#39;s home page - Even the page&#39;s title...

Red Hat -- Linux, Embedded Linux and Open Source Solutions

I could probably go with a :P but it&#39;s in reality a case of "you say tomato, I say tomato".

<!--QuoteBegin-shn@
Not Fedora. It&#39;s basically for developers and it will crash and you will have to fix it..................so can you fix it? :-"

True - Fedora is about as stable as a car with only one wheel (no scouse jokes please people... :-"). However, it looks like Red Hat Inc could be heading towards the Fedora version, abeit chances are it&#39;ll be under another name at the time. Which is why I put it in (future-proofing ;)), though I might be wrong :) I&#39;ll have a look at Fedora and see whether it should be replaced with Red Hat Enterprise :)

I&#39;m not changing the Linux Distro link beyond that though if that&#39;s what you&#39;re looking for :P The distro selected can be argued constantly but like the choice of Windows vs Linux it&#39;s personal choice of the user in the end.

I agree myself that for experienced users there&#39;s a lot of distros better than Red Hat, but for the starter/casual users something that at least feels similar to Windows is something that may be easier to learn the basics of Linux about.

<!--QuoteBegin-shn
Btw, you forgot Gentoo...............and about a thousand other distros. :)[/quote]

Oh b***dy hell - You want me to take an eternity to type all of them in? :lol:[/b][/quote]
Funny.

I did&#39;nt even read your post dude. I only saw the RedHat Enterprise pic.

*sighs*

Take in mind your trying to get a frivilous point across to someone that not only ran RedHat Enterprise server 2.1 for 4 years flat (since I was a wee tweet), but RedHat Enterprise Worksation 2.1 as well.

I won&#39;t waste my time with someone that can&#39;t even tell me the difference between the two.

Client ------------&#62; Server....................... Get it?

Your claims have no merit&#33;

Linux is a ladder, with each distro you move up that ladder................like I said, you left out Gentoo. :)

End

[Illuminati]

Maybe if you read the whole post through, you&#39;d know why I posted the pic of Red Hat Enterprise Linux - I couldn&#39;t have posted the reason why I did any clearer :lol: Then again, usually once a name argument is solved everything else goes to hell ;)

Now - Let&#39;s go back to the original subject of the post instead of talking about my signature. If anyone wants to argue about it, they can PM me in private <_<

Anyone else got any thoughts on the Microsoft issue

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by jobauer+24 March 2004 - 19:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jobauer &#064; 24 March 2004 - 19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@25 March 2004 - 00:11

http://www.digital-law-online.com/misc/ogilvie.htm

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm
:huh: What&#39;s your point ? This thread is not about software copyrights from a philosophical, theoretical, technical or legal point of view...

we are -were- talking about the EU decision and its consequences for Microsoft.

I guess you deserve your name, huh <_<

Anyway, I&#39;m outta here. So long[/b][/quote]
That&#39;s the reason why the USA will tell the EU to eat a sh&#33;t sandwich and shut the Fuk up.

[ilw]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+25 March 2004 - 04:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> @ 25 March 2004 - 04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 19:41
<!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@25 March 2004 - 00:11

http://www.digital-law-online.com/misc/ogilvie.htm

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm
:huh: What&#39;s your point ? This thread is not about software copyrights from a philosophical, theoretical, technical or legal point of view...

we are -were- talking about the EU decision and its consequences for Microsoft.

I guess you deserve your name, huh <_<

Anyway, I&#39;m outta here. So long
That&#39;s the reason why the USA will tell the EU to eat a sh&#33;t sandwich and shut the Fuk up. [/b][/quote]
I still don&#39;t really get it either, those links don&#39;t seem helpful in explaining anything to do with this topic.
Imo there is absolutely no way that microsoft would pull completely out of Europe over this (leaving it for linux and apple?). Its not like they even have to act straight away, it said on the news yesterday that they have 7 years to make their appeals and comply with the ruling.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+25 March 2004 - 05:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> &#064; 25 March 2004 - 05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jobauer@24 March 2004 - 19:41
<!--QuoteBegin-<TROUBLE^MAKER>@25 March 2004 - 00:11

http://www.digital-law-online.com/misc/ogilvie.htm

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm
:huh: What&#39;s your point ? This thread is not about software copyrights from a philosophical, theoretical, technical or legal point of view...

we are -were- talking about the EU decision and its consequences for Microsoft.

I guess you deserve your name, huh <_<

Anyway, I&#39;m outta here. So long
That&#39;s the reason why the USA will tell the EU to eat a sh&#33;t sandwich and shut the Fuk up. [/b][/quote]
The EU is a bigger market than the USA (both in terms of potential sales (numbers) and profit per individual sale).....there is no way M&#036; will leave Europe to its competitors.

That being the case, there is really no need to try and extradite anyone...

they dont pay the fine, they stop trading here, the shareholders lynch the directors for the plummit in M&#036; stock price, justice is done.

they pay the fine, appeal..if they win they win, if they lose they lose...its no big deal.


The "Big Issue" is the bundling of Media players and the opening of source code to competitors... I think this is what Trouble^Maker is trying to say....hence the links.

[100%]

If they sue microsoft for monopolising .wmv -wmp9

should

they then not sue Apple for monopolising .mov thru Quicktime

would the EU have sue apple had they installed Macs?

(theres probably tons of other progies which have their own monopolised .extension and application)

??

[ilw]

its not the movie encoding type thats the monopoly, its the fact that microsoft ship media player integrated into windows so people never try alternative media players and all the software companies trying to sell better media players are basically screwed (Just like the internet browser wars some years back). Also microsoft made it purposefully hard for other companies to produce alternatives to microsoft programs, ie because someone has bought windows they are forced to use a whole range of other microsoft products because microsoft won&#39;t allow competition.


Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don&#39;t think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think&#33;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by ilw@30 March 2004 - 08:15
Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don&#39;t think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think&#33;)
API&#39;s

[lynx]

Originally posted by Busyman+30 March 2004 - 12:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 30 March 2004 - 12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@30 March 2004 - 08:15
Just looking at a few of the earlier posts, I don&#39;t think microsoft have to reveal source code per se, its integration details, ie how software should interact with parts of windows. (I think&#33;)
API&#39;s [/b][/quote]
It is very often more than just API&#39;s, Microsoft also build shortcuts and backdoors into their software which allows them to develop more efficient solutions. They still publish the "proper" way of doing things, but that often involves going through masses of inefficient code to do the same job.

An example from way back - there is no way to directly access the TCP/IP stack from a dos session under Win9x. But the ping command only runs in a dos session, so how does it work? Answer - it uses an undocumented back door directly into the TCP/IP stack. Anyone trying to develop a similar network stack (or utilities for Microsoft&#39;s version) would find it impossible.

Anyway, hasn&#39;t someone "published" their source code for them? :lol:

[Busyman]

It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol: :lol: :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Busyman@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol: :lol: :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.
Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx+11 May 2004 - 02:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 11 May 2004 - 02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.
Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;) [/b][/quote]
Oh please.

Where was this before America brought their suit?

Why is the EU taking into account worldwide sales? (including America for example)

Why was the "media player" fiasco cited?

Anti-trust against what European companies?

I can possibly see this so called stiff penalty in America...if any companies were harmed the most they were American.

The EU comes out of left field with this bullshit.

Maybe Australia should levy the same penalty, since it does take into account worldwide sales....

Then China....

Then South Africa....

&#036;618m a pop.

bullshit&#33; <_<

[lynx]

Originally posted by Busyman+11 May 2004 - 06:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 11 May 2004 - 06:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 02:17
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@11 May 2004 - 05:19
It&#39;s obvious that the EU jumped on bandwagon started by America regarding this bullshit fine.

The EU is fining MS for things that basically have nothing to with Europe.

The basis of this started with "media players" like Real Networks and MusicMatch.

All American companies btw.

The EU is not looking for justice. The companies "harmed" are not even European. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol: Furthermore they are penalizing MS for practices for the most part unrelated to Europe.
What a joke.

They are looking for a payday.
Why do you assume that anti-competitive practices only affect the US? The laws breached are just like your own anti-trust laws.

These laws are there to prevent monopolistic practices forcing up prices and stifling competition. You break the laws, you pay the penallties.

Or are you sggesting that EU laws should not apply to US corporations - I bet GW would be proud of you. ;)
Oh please.

Where was this before America brought their suit?

Why is the EU taking into account worldwide sales? (including America for example)

Why was the "media player" fiasco cited?

Anti-trust against what European companies?

I can possibly see this so called stiff penalty in America...if any companies were harmed the most they were American.

The EU comes out of left field with this bullshit.

Maybe Australia should levy the same penalty, since it does take into account worldwide sales....

Then China....

Then South Africa....

&#036;618m a pop.

bullshit&#33; <_< [/b][/quote]
Firstly, this has been going on for quite some time, it hasn&#39;t started just because the USDoJ brought a suit against Microsoft (and in the end let them off the hook). It may have started with IE, but as Microsoft bundles more and more software with its OS it digs itself deeper and deeper into the mire.

Media Player is just one of the latest of a long line of violations, they never seem to learn. I assume the size of the fine is intended to teach them that lesson.

Secondly, it isn&#39;t about worldwide sales, someone else brought that factor into the discussion to shown how small the fine was in relationship.

You obviously don&#39;t understand the true extent of the reasons behind anti-trust laws. It is not about protecting other companies, even though they are often the ones who produce the complaints which trigger these actions. It is about protecting consumers from monopolistic actions, so even if the other companies which benefit from the action may be American that is a by-product of the action.

Maybe Australia and South Africa and China should get in on the action, Microsoft might finally figure out that monopoly abuse will not be tolerated.

[Busyman]

lynx, what are you talking about?

The EU fine was based on Microsoft&#39;s worldwide sales.

Maybe you need to researxh a little further. It&#39;s one of the reasons that MS is raising such a hoopla.

That&#39;s one reason I say the EU is looking for a payday.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Busyman@23 March 2004 - 17:02
The EU most likely took into account Microsoft&#39;s worldwide sales.
BS

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 May 2004 - 08:03
it&#39;s hardly a payday, the fine in real terms is buttons.

the fact that it is an American company is of no significance.

a business was carrying out monopolistic practices in the EU. the EU found them guilty of this and imposed what it believed to be an appropriate fine.

the business has the right to appeal, one assumes both the ruling and the level of the fine.

it really is quite simple, i am sure MS will appeal this as vigorously as they can. quite rightly so, it behoves them to look after the interests of it&#39;s shareholders. in the same way that the EU should look after it&#39;s citizens.

the legal system in action, it&#39;s wonderful to watch.
Actually, I agree, in large part.

The U.S. legal system has shown it can be gotten around somewhat with regard to monopolistic business practices.

I don&#39;t denigrate Microsoft/Gates to the extent others do, because in the main, their products are amazing, even though they can be nit-picked to death; Bill Gates&#39;s story is incredible, and worthy of enshrinement.

That said, and while I watch with trepidation the actions of other courts (I fully admit my parochial attitude, here), I have long felt that U.S. courts needed to end their practice of finding "exceptions to the rule" as re: monopolistic business practices; Major League Baseball in particular, and professional sports in general, have conducted their "business" with nodding acquiescence and a quick wink from the courts.

Baseball is certainly the most egregious offender, but every time I see a professional team in any sport hold an entire city hostage over a new stadium/venue, I want to puke, and I think it&#39;s time to end this infernal legal covenant.

Bit of a rant, there, but...... :)

[clocker]

I am still rather confused ( a not altogether uncommon state for me) as to why the integration of WMP constitutes a monopolistic action at all.
To me, it just looks as though MS was trying to upgrade/improve their base product ( the OS) with an added feature.
It&#39;s hardly as though they made it impossible ( or even that difficult) to add a new default media player should one choose.

1). If I am assessing this situation correctly, then why aren&#39;t aftermarket air-conditioner or radio manufacturers suing say, Ford, for cutting them out of the lucrative market for these products by integrating them into new cars?

2). If RealPlayer wants so desperately to increase it&#39;s market share, why don&#39;t they design and build their own OS in which to integrate their player? That&#39;s essentially what MS has done, no?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 May 2004 - 11:24
The EU&#39;s Competition Commissioner had accused the company of illegally exploiting its stranglehold on the personal computer market.

On the one hand, the commissioner said, Microsoft was trying to corner the market for servers, the larger back-end computers which store information for other users to access.

On the other, he charged, it was trying to stifle competition for multimedia players such as Real Networks&#39; Realplayer and Apple&#39;s Quicktime.

Old Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3208112.stm)

i think the whole WMP may only be part of it.
Hmmm...American companies......

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman
Hmmm...American companies......

Hmmm... European consumers......

[Busyman]

"Oh my god&#33;&#33;&#33; I&#39;m European and I have to use WMP because it comes with Windows."

"I am so harmed"&#33;&#33;&#33;

"I want justice......put RealPlayer on my prepackaged computer and I&#39;ll feel better"

"No I don&#39;t want to download it"

"Furthermore, Microsoft, reveal your source code to the world because I&#39;m tired of your shit. You have made my life a living hell."

"I pay my bills, do taxes, write letters, and go on the internet with your software and you stink&#33;&#33;&#33;"

[Biggles]

EU laws on competiton are strict, but MS knew that and they knew they were going to get fined. It was the size of the fine which made them baulk. The EU tend to do their own thing.

I read somewhere that the Japanese were starting to ship computers for commercial business without a MS OS (can&#39;t recall the alternative OS) but they were apparently tired of the security issues associated with MS products.

Competition is good though (isn&#39;t it? :) )

[leftism]

Well.. Busyman has just shown that he doesn&#39;t understand this issue.

Heres a crash course in economic theory.

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Competition is good for consumers.

Have a nice day. :)

[yonki]

Originally posted by Busyman@11 May 2004 - 23:56
"Oh my god&#33;&#33;&#33; I&#39;m European and I have to use WMP because it comes with Windows."

"I am so harmed"&#33;&#33;&#33;

"I want justice......put RealPlayer on my prepackaged computer and I&#39;ll feel better"

"No I don&#39;t want to download it"

"Furthermore, Microsoft, reveal your source code to the world because I&#39;m tired of your shit. You have made my life a living hell."

"I pay my bills, do taxes, write letters, and go on the internet with your software and you stink&#33;&#33;&#33;"
You dont seem to understand. Ill try to explain with a very simple example:

Imagine that just the OS costs X and WMP costs Y. If i just want to buy de OS there is no way i can pay just X,which is its real price, i have to pay X+Y when i only want the OS.

Its like if you went to buy a car and the guy tells you:You buy it with our CD-player or you dont buy it. What if i dont want that CD-player, what if i dont want a CD-player at all?I would have to pay for it anyways.

If you didnt understand please raise your hand and ill try to explain again :P

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@11 May 2004 - 19:27
EU laws on competiton are strict, but MS knew that and they knew they were going to get fined. It was the size of the fine which made them baulk. The EU tend to do their own thing.

I read somewhere that the Japanese were starting to ship computers for commercial business without a MS OS (can&#39;t recall the alternative OS) but they were apparently tired of the security issues associated with MS products.

Competition is good though (isn&#39;t it?&nbsp; :)&nbsp; )
Well there ya go.

Use someone elses OS then.

Other than that I understand what you say about competition.

I know it well from the telcom industry.

Since the breakup of the Baby Bells the older consumers (those who were around when it was Ma Bell) have witnessed shittier service year after year.

Some and only some of your arguments are flawed regarding monopolies.

I&#39;m merely playing devil&#39;s advocate here yonki but how much did Windows up their price by adding WMP and Internet Explorer?

Explain it to me again.

Btw car companies do that all time regarding certain features.

I can&#39;t choose an after market CD player because I have to get theirs to get tires and air conditioning.....and pay extra for it. It called the luxurious premium package.

@Biggles- the EU&#39;s strict competition laws seemed to kick in right after America&#39;s.

Nice going. :)
-------------
It seems the monopoly was created by a damn good product.

If you don&#39;t like it, buy something else....oh no but you won&#39;t so...leech off the monopoly.

We have this in telecom.

We have to sell lines below cost to competitors to....compete with us. :blink:
They have space in our central offices.
Not only that they want part of new technologies like fiber optics that we haven&#39;t even built yet.

If you don&#39;t like a monopoly, regulate them.

Cable has be deregulated here for years and prices have soared past inflation but.....people keep buying.

[Rat Faced]

I may be stupid, but i have trouble understanding the arguement busyman..

No European Companies were being hurt... this is true, if they had a half decent IT department.


However, the monopoly laws are there to protect consumers, not companies.

They broke the law, they pay the price.


Your argument seems to imply that if an American kills an American in Europe, he shouldnt be tried for that as no Europeans were hurt. Crap.

OK, theres a huge difference between breaking Monopoly Laws and murder, however the Law is the Law. Just because no Europeans were "hurt" is no reason to exclude US companies from it.

You may feel sympathy for people that get collared by "unjust" Laws, but you cant demand or expect that American Companies should be excluded....just because they&#39;re American.

You break a Law, you get caught, you pay a price.

Its a risk most people on this Forum take every day...we all know that, im sure Microsoft knew it too. They have an awful lot of fancy lawyers on their side...so they probably know it a lot better than we do.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 20:40
I may be stupid, but i have trouble understanding the arguement busyman..

No European Companies were being hurt... this is true, if they had a half decent IT department.


However, the monopoly laws are there to protect consumers, not companies.

They broke the law, they pay the price.


Your argument seems to imply that if an American kills an American in Europe, he shouldnt be tried for that as no Europeans were hurt. Crap.

OK, theres a huge difference between breaking Monopoly Laws and murder, however the Law is the Law. Just because no Europeans were "hurt" is no reason to exclude US companies from it.

You may feel sympathy for people that get collared by "unjust" Laws, but you cant demand or expect that American Companies should be excluded....just because they&#39;re American.

You break a Law, you get caught, you pay a price.

Its a risk most people on this Forum take every day...we all know that, im sure Microsoft knew it too. They have an awful lot of fancy lawyers on their side...so they probably know it a lot better than we do.
Uh..huh.

How were you harmed?

I&#39;m in America and Microsoft didn&#39;t kick me in the ass for erroneous amounts of money.

Hell, I seem to enjoy computing more than I did 10 years ago.

Thanks for harming me Microsoft.

Again you made my life hell. <_<

[lynx]

Let me put this a different way.

I don&#39;t like WMP, I don&#39;t think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don&#39;t believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft&#39;s actions it is detrimental to the company.

So I am harmed because I am unable to get hold of a superior product because Microsoft&#39;s actions have driven the company producing it out of business, or that insufficient progress is being made because of reduced investment caused by loss of sales.

It doesn&#39;t matter a damn where the company is based or where you are based, anti-competitive actions are bad for ALL consumers.

I&#39;ll give you a practical example where this has actually happened.

Networking used to be sold as an add-on to Microsoft products. There were also dozens of alternative networking products which could be used instead, many of them better than Microsoft&#39;s offerings (for example fewer security holes). Then Microsoft started adding networking as part of the "standard package". The result is that most of the alternative networking products have disappeared. But Microsoft&#39;s offerings are still full of security holes.

This is an example of how YOU are being harmed by these practices.

[clocker]

Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 19:23
Let me put this a different way.

I don&#39;t like WMP, I don&#39;t think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don&#39;t believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft&#39;s actions it is detrimental to the company.


Isn&#39;t this simply a classic example of capitalism at work?
How difficult was it for you to find and install the (presumptively) superior product created by your mythical little guy?
How much did you pay for it?

I&#39;m sorry, I still don&#39;t get it.

When a neighbor of mine recently purchased a new PC she was thrilled to death that Windows was as inclusive as it is.
Plug and play...turn it on and GO&#33;
Had she wanted to build her own OS from scratch she could have installed Linux and chosen every component separately.
But that&#39;s not what she wanted and MS was selling exactly what she wanted to buy.
Where is the "damaged consumer" in this transaction?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 22:23
Let me put this a different way.

I don&#39;t like WMP, I don&#39;t think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don&#39;t believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft&#39;s actions it is detrimental to the company.

So I am harmed because I am unable to get hold of a superior product because Microsoft&#39;s actions have driven the company producing it out of business, or that insufficient progress is being made because of reduced investment caused by loss of sales.

It doesn&#39;t matter a damn where the company is based or where you are based, anti-competitive actions are bad for ALL consumers.

I&#39;ll give you a practical example where this has actually happened.

Networking used to be sold as an add-on to Microsoft products. There were also dozens of alternative networking products which could be used instead, many of them better than Microsoft&#39;s offerings (for example fewer security holes). Then Microsoft started adding networking as part of the "standard package". The result is that most of the alternative networking products have disappeared. But Microsoft&#39;s offerings are still full of security holes.

This is an example of how YOU are being harmed by these practices.
Still flawed.

By what you say.

Windows should be a shell and nothing more.

I should buy a separate uninstaller, media player, picture viewer, etc.

I am not harmed. If the consumer doesn&#39;t buy this superior add-on and settles for the free inferior product that&#39;s the fault of the consumer.

Microsoft did not force you to NOT buy an add-on.

Look at the market now.

I remember when WordPerfect was the standard in word processing now it&#39;s MS Word. It is not bundled with Windows.

If we want a different product, we buy it.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
Isn&#39;t this simply a classic example of capitalism at work?
How difficult was it for you to find and install the (presumptively) superior product created by your mythical little guy?
How much did you pay for it?

I&#39;m sorry, I still don&#39;t get it.

When a neighbor of mine recently purchased a new PC she was thrilled to death that Windows was as inclusive as it is.
Plug and play...turn it on and GO&#33;
Had she wanted to build her own OS from scratch she could have installed Linux and chosen every component separately.
But that&#39;s not what she wanted and MS was selling exactly what she wanted to buy.
Where is the "damaged consumer" in this transaction?

It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M&#036; counterparts)

Why should consumers have to pay extra for products they&#39;re never going to use? And make no mistake about it, customers are paying extra. M&#036; are not spending millions on development costs for IE and WMP just to give them away for free.

This is what happens when you have a monopoly. The customers choice is severely limited and the company in question can charge whatever price they feel like. It&#39;s hard to see the damage monopolies do until they are broken up and a better situation arises. This has happened in many industries over the years. e.g I would not be getting free local calls if BT still had a monopoly in the UK.

The EU isn&#39;t demanding M&#036; remove WMP from all versions of Windows, they just want them to offer a version that doesn&#39;t include WMP.

Is it really so unreasonable to demand that consumers be offered a choice?

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@11 May 2004 - 21:30


It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M&#036; counterparts)


What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can&#39;t do it.

Gee, let&#39;s fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+12 May 2004 - 02:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 12 May 2004 - 02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@11 May 2004 - 21:30


It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M&#036; counterparts)


What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can&#39;t do it.

Gee, let&#39;s fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed. [/b][/quote]
Good one. :lol: :lol:

Better yet

Let&#39;s say Windows is &#036;90

2 years from now a newer version is ....&#036;90...but has 2 new features

2 years from then it&#39;s....&#036;90....but has 4 more new features.

Anyway I don&#39;t get how MS has stopped another company from making another OS.

It&#39;s not MS&#39;s fault OS/Warp didn&#39;t take off. The OS sucked ass.

There&#39;s also Apple computer.

The fact is the consumer likes Windows and has made it popular. Make the "switch" to Apple then if you don&#39;t like Windows.

"I hate Microsoft"

but tomorrow "I just got this great game for my PC that I can&#39;t wait play"

[lynx]

To use the networking example again, this goes back to the time when most buyers were corporate users.

The networking product was bundled in with the OS. What corporate buyer was going to go to the board and tell them "We&#39;ve got networking with this product but I suggest we ignore what we&#39;ve had to spend on that and go out an buy a new one. And if you could suggest where I look for a new job that would be useful".

Networking didn&#39;t need to be part of the OS. Integrating it so closely has been the cause of most of the worst security breaches. It is not like the Ferrari engine, more like bundling a garage in with the car. It doesn&#39;t match your home, it is even out of character with the locality and it breaks all the planning laws, but nobody is doing anything about that and, what the heck, it is "free".

I think you&#39;ve probably noticed this, many pc&#39;s come with pre-installed software. It often isn&#39;t all Microsoft software, which means it had to be installed separately. The big pc vendors don&#39;t mind, they do it once (or twice to make sure they&#39;ve got it right) then they clone the hard drive. But there&#39;s a media player included with the windows price, do you really think they are going to buy another player, at their own cost, just to give it away? Once again, the corporate buyer who suggested that would very quickly be looking for a new job. And most of the public don&#39;t realise what a crappy product WMP is (and IE for that matter) so they go along with it.

That&#39;s like buying the Ferrari with the garage. You CAN open the garage doors and drive outside, but there are no instructions on how to do it, and anyway the garage is now tightly bolted on, and it keeps some the rain off your Ferrari. Most people don&#39;t realise they should be able to buy the Ferrari on it&#39;s own, but they are uninformed, and they are still being told that their Ferrari can do 0-60 in 5 seconds. Now fitted with Microsoft Stopwatch for improved performance, 0-60 in under 1 second&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Built in Firewall? Don&#39;t make me laugh, but you can bet that&#39;s the next big push. At the moment it&#39;s a complete POS, but Microsoft will improve it slightly so that it nearly works, then push it as the best thing since sliced bread. What do you suppose will happen to the other Firewall suppliers.

And the &#036;90 OS?
Most pc&#39;s have got an OS thrown in. The people who bought the pc&#39;s paid &#036;90 for it, although they don&#39;t realise it because it was an inclusive price.

Now they want a new pc because their old one is out of date. So they get one, and pay &#036;90 for a new OS. And this one has 2 "free" extra features. But of course they already had a perfectly good OS, so they&#39;ve just paid &#036;90 for the 2 extra features. When you look at it in those terms, all of a sudden it isn&#39;t such a good deal.

Nobody so far has said Windows isn&#39;t a good product. But IE is mediocre and WMP is a POS. I don&#39;t use WMP at all, and I only use IE when I have to because some Microsoft brainwashed idiot has designed their website to be compatible with IE and nothing else. So I have no choice but to have IE installed, and I understand the problems trying to remove WMP are worse than leaving it sitting unused, even though it probably leaves gaping security holes and degrades the performance of my pc just by being installed.

Nobody want&#39;s to stop Microsoft selling any of these products, they just want them to do it FAIRLY.

[clocker]

Lynx,
To use your networking example...
Why was the MS OS purchased in the first place if a critical component (the networking software) was known to be flawed or not suitable for the corporation&#39;s needs?
Sounds like a failure by the IT department rather than MS to me.

Networking didn&#39;t need to be part of the OS. Integrating it so closely has been the cause of most of the worst security breaches. It is not like the Ferrari engine, more like bundling a garage in with the car. It doesn&#39;t match your home, it is even out of character with the locality and it breaks all the planning laws, but nobody is doing anything about that and, what the heck, it is "free".
So don&#39;t buy it.
It&#39;s hardly as though they are hiding the fact that the garage is included...Microsoft in fact, trumpets the inclusion of the features you so roundly despise in all their advertising.

And the &#036;90 OS?
Most pc&#39;s have got an OS thrown in. The people who bought the pc&#39;s paid &#036;90 for it, although they don&#39;t realise it because it was an inclusive price.
So what?
Most people who buy Porches don&#39;t realize the cost of an oil filter till it comes time to replace it cause it is "bundled" into the purchase price.
Are you suggesting that every device we buy should be broken into component parts and the consumer gets to pick and choose his "dream machine" from a list of pieces?
Well, in fact that is possible...but not on a mass produced scale. Such a manufacturing technique would price the both of us right out of the market.

Nobody want&#39;s to stop Microsoft selling any of these products, they just want them to do it FAIRLY.
Define "fairly".
To me it would seem that you expect MS to offer their product with the caveat that many of the components are flawed and unusable.
I&#39;m sure that the boys in Redmond would disagree.
MS does the best it can and then offers the product for sale.
The scale of their success would indicate that their efforts have met with consumer approval.
If you get your new PC home and then discover that you don&#39;t like it, who&#39;s fault is that?
"Caveat emptor" applies to computers just as it does to any consumer product, yet this punitive fine seems to single out a single manufacturer for violating some nebulous consumer protection law not applied to other companies.
Who else is getting punished for continually upgrading their product and trying to make it more inclusive?
Usually this is seen as boon to the consumer, not a bane.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can&#39;t do it.

Gee, let&#39;s fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed.


Don&#39;t be so facetious clocker.

Do Ferrari have a monopoly? No they don&#39;t.

If I don&#39;t buy a Ferrari does that mean I can&#39;t drive on most of the roads? No it doesn&#39;t.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I have to admit that I&#39;m surprised the anti-European sentiment outweighs the fundamental economic theory that monopolies are bad for consumers. :rolleyes:

Be honest, if M&#036; were a European company neither you or Busyman would be making the same argument. Your opinion on this subject has got nothing to do with principle or economics, it&#39;s got more to do with that strange brand of "patriotism" you guys are so fond of.

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@12 May 2004 - 07:18


I have to admit that I&#39;m surprised the anti-European sentiment outweighs the fundamental economic theory that monopolies are bad for consumers. :rolleyes:

Be honest, if M&#036; were a European company neither you or Busyman would be making the same argument. Your opinion on this subject has got nothing to do with principle or economics, it&#39;s got more to do with that strange brand of "patriotism" you guys are so fond of.
Leftism,
What the hell are you on about?
Not once in my posts have I said the first thing about this being some sort of uniquely European phenomonon.
The fact that this fine was imposed by the EU is completely irrelevant.

Please don&#39;t muddy the waters here by trying to invent some pro-US aspect in my argument...it simply doesn&#39;t exist.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@12 May 2004 - 10:36
Leftism,
What the hell are you on about?
Not once in my posts have I said the first thing about this being some sort of uniquely European phenomonon.
The fact that this fine was imposed by the EU is completely irrelevant.

Please don&#39;t muddy the waters here by trying to invent some pro-US aspect in my argument...it simply doesn&#39;t exist.
I thought the initial basis of the American lawsuit was crap.

Netscape had 90% of the browser market. Microsoft takes it away. Netscape cries foul.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@12 May 2004 - 05:52
To use the networking example again, this goes back to the time when most buyers were corporate users.

The networking product was bundled in with the OS. What corporate buyer was going to go to the board and tell them "We&#39;ve got networking with this product but I suggest we ignore what we&#39;ve had to spend on that and go out an buy a new one. And if you could suggest where I look for a new job that would be useful".

Networking didn&#39;t need to be part of the OS. Integrating it so closely has been the cause of most of the worst security breaches. It is not like the Ferrari engine, more like bundling a garage in with the car. It doesn&#39;t match your home, it is even out of character with the locality and it breaks all the planning laws, but nobody is doing anything about that and, what the heck, it is "free".

I think you&#39;ve probably noticed this, many pc&#39;s come with pre-installed software. It often isn&#39;t all Microsoft software, which means it had to be installed separately. The big pc vendors don&#39;t mind, they do it once (or twice to make sure they&#39;ve got it right) then they clone the hard drive. But there&#39;s a media player included with the windows price, do you really think they are going to buy another player, at their own cost, just to give it away? Once again, the corporate buyer who suggested that would very quickly be looking for a new job. And most of the public don&#39;t realise what a crappy product WMP is (and IE for that matter) so they go along with it.

That&#39;s like buying the Ferrari with the garage. You CAN open the garage doors and drive outside, but there are no instructions on how to do it, and anyway the garage is now tightly bolted on, and it keeps some the rain off your Ferrari. Most people don&#39;t realise they should be able to buy the Ferrari on it&#39;s own, but they are uninformed, and they are still being told that their Ferrari can do 0-60 in 5 seconds. Now fitted with Microsoft Stopwatch for improved performance, 0-60 in under 1 second&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Built in Firewall? Don&#39;t make me laugh, but you can bet that&#39;s the next big push. At the moment it&#39;s a complete POS, but Microsoft will improve it slightly so that it nearly works, then push it as the best thing since sliced bread. What do you suppose will happen to the other Firewall suppliers.

And the &#036;90 OS?
Most pc&#39;s have got an OS thrown in. The people who bought the pc&#39;s paid &#036;90 for it, although they don&#39;t realise it because it was an inclusive price.

Now they want a new pc because their old one is out of date. So they get one, and pay &#036;90 for a new OS. And this one has 2 "free" extra features. But of course they already had a perfectly good OS, so they&#39;ve just paid &#036;90 for the 2 extra features. When you look at it in those terms, all of a sudden it isn&#39;t such a good deal.

Nobody so far has said Windows isn&#39;t a good product. But IE is mediocre and WMP is a POS. I don&#39;t use WMP at all, and I only use IE when I have to because some Microsoft brainwashed idiot has designed their website to be compatible with IE and nothing else. So I have no choice but to have IE installed, and I understand the problems trying to remove WMP are worse than leaving it sitting unused, even though it probably leaves gaping security holes and degrades the performance of my pc just by being installed.

Nobody want&#39;s to stop Microsoft selling any of these products, they just want them to do it FAIRLY.
lynx once again your argument is flawed.

If the consumer wants what is normally an add-on for free and that "add-on" is inferior that is the consumers fault.

Microsoft has a firewall. I believe it sucks so I buy Zone Alarm.

Consumer stays with the free MS firewall. How is that MS&#39;s fault?

You are faulting Microsoft because you know there are better add-ons out there that the masses don&#39;t know about.

It also the "fault" of the consumer for buying a new OS when it&#39;s not needed.

If a consumer paid money to upgrade to Windows ME to gain 2 features. again that&#39;s their "fault".

Before America&#39;s case against Microsoft, I didn&#39;t hear this public outcry for Microsoft to bundled competitors products. The outcry was from competitors.

Stop blaming MS for shit you the consumer should be doing.

This reminds me somewhat of McDonalds.

Someone stuffs their face there for years and years then complains of being fat and unhealthy.

Some consumers are not always right. In this Microsoft case, the consumer was even the one complaining.

[Snee]

Originally posted by Busyman@12 May 2004 - 16:25
Before America&#39;s case against Microsoft, I didn&#39;t hear this public outcry for Microsoft to bundled competitors products. The outcry was from competitors.
I&#39;ve heard people bitch about their monopoly for years. :huh:

Might not have been noticed in the US until the Americans themselves did something about it.

The fact that the EU followed suit...well they may have thought it a lost cause until MS got spanked on their home court.

Can&#39;t verify anything about the rest of the EU though, only what&#39;s happened in my own country. Here people are allergic to monopolies apparently, and the laws are pretty strict against it.

Except of course when it comes to alcohol, the government owns that monopoly, it&#39;s not allowed for any other company to sell liqour apart from the government run one, which btw jacks up the prices something fierce.

An article from 2002 about a trial on the Microsoft OS monopoly: in swedish though (http://www.idg.se/ArticlePages/200204/10/20020410103000657_CS41/20020410103000657_CS41.dbp.asp), another article from 1999 that mentions the monopoly, also in Swedish (http://www.backsource.org/texts/pra/fri-9.html)

Edit: the general idea one gets, and this is just from browsing the web, is that there&#39;s been widespread talk of a monopoly, possibly considered illegal, ever since netscape and explorer first saw the light of day.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@12 May 2004 - 14:08
yet this punitive fine seems to single out a single manufacturer for violating some nebulous consumer protection law not applied to other companies.

This Law is applied to other companies, frequently.

It usually involves collusion between companies in the UK.. eg Price of New Cars being "fixed" by supposedly competing manufacturers, and every now and then a Media Company hits the headlines.

The difference here is that it was taken up by the EU as a whole, rather than the individual Monopolies Commisions (or equivalent) of the Member States.

If there had been 15 seperate investigations then not only would that have been duplication of effort, but the cumulative fines would probably have been more than the single Fine imposed.

It would have been the same as if every individual State of the USA prosecuted and investigated them seperatly and the courts then proceded to Fine them 50 times instead of once....not very efficient, and the costs would have been a lot higher.

[J'Pol]

Hasn&#39;t the EU case been running for a few years.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@12 May 2004 - 19:56
Hasn&#39;t the EU case been running for a few years.
Uh huh.

[J'Pol]

Forgive my ignorance, but how is the EU jumping on a bandwagon started in the US.

[lynx]

Originally posted by clocker@12 May 2004 - 14:08
Lynx,
To use your networking example...
Why was the MS OS purchased in the first place if a critical component (the networking software) was known to be flawed or not suitable for the corporation&#39;s needs?
Sounds like a failure by the IT department rather than MS to me.
ane.
Sorry clocker, you&#39;ve obviously not come across the Board vs IT department scenario. The IT department knows exactly what it needs, the Board looks at this, someone on the board thinks (s)he knows better and persuades the board to employ a "consultant" to reduce IT costs. The consultant either doesn&#39;t know his arse from his elbow or decides that he can make more money by going against the IT dept, so his recommendation is to go with the crap they&#39;ve already paid for, usually with some useless add-ons supplied by his own company or another company that he gets a kick back from.

No disrespect to you clocker, but I&#39;ve been doing this for nearly 30 years, and I&#39;ve seen that scenario too many times. I&#39;ve also seen the shit that Microsoft have come out with year after year, and the good companies that they have ploughed under. To be blunt the general level of their products would get a C-. You (like most of the general public) may think what they produce is good, but that is probably because you haven&#39;t seen what good software is really like.

Having said that, I believe that the Windows product can be the right way forward, and Microsoft products can be good, but if they stifle the competition they have nothing to work against so their own targets become lower and the whole thing could end up in the shitter.

At the moment, Microsoft have nothing to worry about from Linux. Installation of just about anything is a nightmare, documentation is abyssmal (there is plenty of it, but it is written in the form of a PhD dissertation), and compatibility between variations is dubious. But it is improving, and this is the one area where the MS muscle even in it&#39;s SCO guise (who knew that was still part of MS) won&#39;t have a significant effect.

I&#39;ve said enough on this subject.
If you can&#39;t see that what&#39;s wrong is wrong, so be it.

[clocker]

Lynx,
Your "networking example", while obviously near and dear to your heart, has failed to demonstrate how Microsoft has colluded to deny your company the ability to achieve their desired goals.
Office politics, misplaced thrift and general ignorance would seem to be the big problems here.
How does slapping MS on the wrist change this scenario at all?

If the overriding concern is that MS has somehow stifled competition by "bundling" extras (WMP, Winamp,etc) with Windows, then I suppose that we can expect a major increase in the sales/installation of RealPlayer should these items be deleted?
Get real ( bad pun).
As long as Windows doesn&#39;t crash when you try install an aftermarket component, then I don&#39;t see where the monopoly problem is coming from.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 May 2004 - 16:24
The EU&#39;s Competition Commissioner had accused the company of illegally exploiting its stranglehold on the personal computer market.

On the one hand, the commissioner said, Microsoft was trying to corner the market for servers, the larger back-end computers which store information for other users to access.

On the other, he charged, it was trying to stifle competition for multimedia players such as Real Networks&#39; Realplayer and Apple&#39;s Quicktime.

Old Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3208112.stm)

i think the whole WMP may only be part of it.
Isn&#39;t it more this part that chaps like lynx are referring to. The part which relates to the fundamental infrastructure of systems and networks. As opposed to the part used to play your mp3&#39;s.

Isn&#39;t it the case that newspapers talking about servers and networking software would be of little interest, or beyond the understanding of their readers. So they concentrate on the aspect they will understand, media players - yes most people use them.

Again the point is not the relative merits of the software. It is the practices used to prevent others from developing and producing their own products. The fairness (to the consumer)element relates to the fact that if there are no options then MS (or anyone else) can sell whatever they want, people will be forced to buy it. Decent capitalism requires competition.

Monopolies also stifle advances in technology. Why have a huge R&D Department spending millions or billions of dollars, when folk have to get the stuff from you anyway. Let it advance, yes but what&#39;s the rush. If someone else comes along with something better, just put him out of business.

This ruling is not a pop at MS, it is the EU upholding one of it&#39;s fundamental principles.

[Biggles]

At the end of the day the issue is about market share. MS want as big a market share as possible and in all fairness to them they have also done their bit to increase market size too.

The EU and, indeed, the UK, for a long time have held monopolistic practices as bad for business and the consumer. I am sure there are similar rules in the US.

MS have taken a smack on the wrist for displaying naughty tendancies - however, they will not pout and say they are no longer playing. The EU with 25 countries and 400 million people is just too big a game to walk away from - and, as I said, it is all about market share. :)

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
I suppose that we can expect a major increase in the sales/installation of RealPlayer should these items be deleted?
Get real ( bad pun).

It worked in reverse. Netscape were virtually destroyed when M&#036; incorporated IE into Windows and that had nothing to do with the quality of the product. M&#036; simply relied on peoples laziness.

I think that sales of other media players would increase and it would also drive the costs of M&#036;&#39;s product down.

Just imagine this for a moment...

M&#036; is forced to release a version of Windows that is cheaper and doesnt have WMP. A lot of people will go for the cheaper option. Then they&#39;ll need a media player. They have a look around and try a few out. After looking at the alternatives, many of which are superior and some of which are free, they realise that WMP really is a bloated insecure POS. M&#036; is forced to lower its prices and increase the quality and security of it&#39;s software.

I don&#39;t think thats an unrealistic scenario.

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@13 May 2004 - 19:25


M&#036; is forced to release a version of Windows that is cheaper and doesnt have WMP. A lot of people will go for the cheaper option. Then they&#39;ll need a media player. They have a look around and try a few out. After looking at the alternatives, many of which are superior and some of which are free, they realise that WMP really is a bloated insecure POS. M&#036; is forced to lower its prices and increase the quality and security of it&#39;s software.

I don&#39;t think thats an unrealistic scenario.
Who is forcing MS to lower their price?
There is no significant competitor to Windows, so now you just the OS stripped of some of the goodies that used to be included.
So, let&#39;s see...now you need a media viewer.
Let&#39;s try RealPlayer, it&#39;s free.
WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE?
No, thank you.
Hmmm, how about Quicktime.
WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE?
Boy, this is great.

You think that WMP is bloatware?
Don&#39;t use it.
You hate IE?
Don&#39;t use it.
But why insist that everyone must cater to your opinions, no one gets these things for free anymore.

Gee, thanks.
Way to go.
Can hardly wait to see this Brave New World of unfettered competition that you envision.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who is forcing MS to lower their price?
There is no significant competitor to Windows, so now you just the OS stripped of some of the goodies that used to be included.
[/b]

We&#39;ve already been through this clocker. I dont want to be rude but please pay attention. If the EU get their way you will still be able to buy the standard version of Windows with all the "goodies" it currently has. The only change will be another version of Windows without the goodies, which logically will be cheaper.

There may not be a viable competitor to the OS, but there are plenty of competitors in the media player and browser market.


Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So, let&#39;s see...now you need a media viewer.
Let&#39;s try RealPlayer, it&#39;s free.
WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE?
No, thank you.
Hmmm, how about Quicktime.
WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE? WANNA UPGRADE?
Boy, this is great.
[/b]

There are other options asides from quicktime and realplayer. Try VLC. Did you not know there are other quality free media players or are you just intent on misrepresenting the situation?


Originally posted by clocker

You think that WMP is bloatware?
Don&#39;t use it.


I don&#39;t.


Originally posted by clocker

You hate IE?
Don&#39;t use it.


I don&#39;t.


Originally posted by clocker

But why insist that everyone must cater to your opinions,

I&#39;m not. I&#39;m making the point that consumers should be offered a choice to buy Windows without WMP and IE.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@

no one gets these things for free anymore.
[/quote]

You don&#39;t get them free now&#33; Windows would be cheaper without them. You don&#39;t really think M&#036; spend millions on developing IE and WMP and then give them away do you?

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker

Gee, thanks.
Way to go.
Can hardly wait to see this Brave New World of unfettered competition that you envision.
[/quote]

Calm down :rolleyes:

I&#39;m arguing for a choice. I&#39;m arguing that this monopoly is bad for the consumer.

Tell me... why are you so adamant that consumers shouldnt have a choice?

I am not imposing my ideals on anyone, it is you who are determined that people like me should be denied a choice just because you happen to like the status quo.

I still havent seen you produce one viable argument against the EU&#39;s plan and that rant was about as convincing as your flawed Ferrari analogy..

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@13 May 2004 - 20:34


Tell me... why are you so adamant that consumers shouldnt have a choice?

I am not imposing my ideals on anyone, it is you who are determined that people like me should be denied a choice just because you happen to like the status quo.

I still havent seen you produce one viable argument against the EU&#39;s plan and that rant was about as convincing as your flawed Ferrari analogy..
Lefty,
You haven&#39;t been paying attention to your own posts, nevermind mine.
Having already said that you don&#39;t even use IE, WMP, etc. you have yet to produce any evidence showing that your options have been limited by big, bad MS.

If you think that Windows, stripped of the add-ons, will be any cheaper than the current version, then pigs must be flying through a snowstorm in hell.
XP will stay exactly the same cost, MS will simply sell an add on program with all the things that they used to include.
And they will continue to dominate the market, just as they do now.


We&#39;ve already been through this clocker. I dont want to be rude but please pay attention.
I just love being patronized.
Please keep it up.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lefty,
You haven&#39;t been paying attention to your own posts, nevermind mine.
Having already said that you don&#39;t even use IE, WMP, etc. you have yet to produce any evidence showing that your options have been limited by big, bad MS.[/b]

Look at what happened to Netscape. Isn&#39;t that evidence of the damage M&#036;&#39;s monopoly causes to superior products? I&#39;m also a little more tech savvy than your average middle aged "just bought a stupidly overpriced PC from PC World for the family" user. Just because it doesn&#39;t affect me personally, it doesn&#39;t mean the point is invalid.

If XP doesn&#39;t come with WMP then people will have to look for a media player. All these people aren&#39;t going to choose WMP, which they&#39;ll have to pay for separately. Therefore M&#036; will lose a significant share of the media player market due to consumer choice. It&#39;s common sense to expect this to happen.


Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you think that Windows, stripped of the add-ons, will be any cheaper than the current version, then pigs must be flying through a snowstorm in hell.
XP will stay exactly the same cost, MS will simply sell an add on program with all the things that they used to include.[/b]

Well, if they want to try and sell a product with less content for the same price I guess the EU will just have to start kicking their arse in that area as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

We&#39;ve already been through this clocker. I dont want to be rude but please pay attention.
[/quote]

I just love being patronized.
Please keep it up.
[/quote]

You brought up the same argument twice and I had to provide you with the same factual answer twice. (and you accuse me of not reading posts&#33;) What kind of response did you expect?

Monopolies are not good for consumers, they never have been and they never will be. They stifle competition and keep prices at an artificially high level. I thought this was standard economic theory, not a controversial opinion.

[clocker]

Well, if they want to try and sell a product with less content for the same price I guess the EU will just have to start kicking their arse in that area as well.
Oh really.
The EU has the power to determine a fair content/ price ratio for products sold in their jurisdiction?

Look at what happened to Netscape. Isn&#39;t that evidence of the damage M&#036;&#39;s monopoly causes to superior products? I&#39;m also a little more tech savvy than your average middle aged "just bought a stupidly overpriced PC from PC World for the family" user. Just because it doesn&#39;t affect me personally, it doesn&#39;t mean the point is invalid.
If Netscape was as demonstrably superior as you claim it would still be around.
Why is it&#39;s demise a byproduct of MS and it&#39;s terribly unfair business practices instead of the natural result of the capitalist system?
The Tucker was light years ahead of other cars of it&#39;s era, yet it didn&#39;t survive the free market.
Stupid public kept buying Fords for some reason.
Too bad the EU wasn&#39;t around then to save us from what we wanted.

You brought up the same argument twice and I had to provide you with the same factual answer twice. (and you accuse me of not reading posts&#33;) What kind of response did you expect?
Lefty, at some point in the future you will realize that simply because you post an answer it does not automatically become " factual".
You have, as have I, been posting opinions.
The fact that neither of us has been able to convince the other of our opinion&#39;s inherent rightness should surprise no one.

I still don&#39;t get it and you&#39;re clearly not the one to enlighten me.
Nice try though.

[Rat Faced]

The EU has the power to determine a fair content/ price ratio for products sold in their jurisdiction?


Yes; although that option has seldom, if ever, been used. The threat has always sufficed.


Why is it&#39;s demise a byproduct of MS and it&#39;s terribly unfair business practices instead of the natural result of the capitalist system?


Arent these one and the same thing?

Europe is like the USA, in that its generally a market lead economy.

In Europe however; people are, generally, more important than Companies... so we have yet to travel the Capitalist route as far as yourselves.

This is not to say it wont happen.

The Governemnts have a duty to look after their people&#39;s rights. They recognise that most people are lazy and stupid. They therefore make laws to protect the consumer. It doesnt matter what country the "Companies" from, it breaks the law it pays the price.

Unfortunately we see Companies having more and more "influence" with Government, this is not necessarily a good thing.



One thing that cant be claimed here is that its "Protectionism", something that occurs in the USA regarding European Goods. Is this fairer than what the EU are doing to MS?

For example Steel... The "Market" was that European Steel was being bought as it was cheaper. The answer was to arbitrarily put extra Import Taxes on it to protect US companies.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If Netscape was as demonstrably superior as you claim it would still be around.[/b]

Do a little research on the topic clocker. This is not the case at all. This is the whole point of the EU exercise.


Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why is it&#39;s demise a byproduct of MS and it&#39;s terribly unfair business practices instead of the natural result of the capitalist system?[/b]

Because... :frusty: Netscape didn&#39;t die out due to it&#39;s quality. It died because people just accepted IE because it came with Windows. This is the crux of the matter. I thought everyone involved in this debate understood this. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
&nbsp;
You brought up the same argument twice and I had to provide you with the same factual answer twice. (and you accuse me of not reading posts&#33;) What kind of response did you expect?[/quote]


Lefty, at some point in the future you will realize that simply because you post an answer it does not automatically become " factual".
You have, as have I, been posting opinions.
[/quote]

Wrong. :frusty:

You asked twice why we should have a Windows without all the goodies. Twice I had to tell you that the EU is asking for M&#036; to produce 2 versions. Not get rid of Windows as we know it.

This is fact.

This is not opinion.

This is the 3rd time I&#39;ve had to explain this to you, will there be a 4th?

My argument is backed up with accepted economic theory. You&#39;re arguing that you are right, M&#036;&#39;s monopoly is a good thing and that standard economic theory is incorrect.

[Rat Faced]

Yep...

But im talking "Extra" taxes to increase prices and protect US companies.

No country would argue that other countries shouldnt have normal import duties.. to selectively choose some to make higher, is protectionism.





:ph34r:

Well actually, i would argue against Import Duties of all types. I am quite willing to buy smuggled stuff, as long as its a legal product in its own right.

The products are already taxed in the shops, Import Duty is a form of extortion in my opinion, that stifles the Market and scews the results...

As with Copyright Law, i have no sympathy with Import Duty...and as such break it as much as possible without getting caught :P

:ph34r:

[j2k4]

I&#39;ll make the broad assumption those posting in this thread don&#39;t mind a good read, especially when it is on point.

Herewith please find two columns having to do with the Microsoft/Anti-trust issue here in the U.S., written by one of the smartest fellows on the planet, a certain Dr. Thomas Sowell.

I do not intend that these counter the situation with the E.U., merely to enlighten as to what went on in the U.S. at the time the case was meandering through our court system; a careful read might lend some clarity.

Enjoy&#33;

Microsoft and Anti-"Trust"

The biggest question about anti-trust law is whether there really is any such thing. There are anti-trust theories and anti-trust rhetoric, as well as judicial pronouncements on anti-trust. But there is very little that could be called law in the full sense of rules known in advance and applied consistently.

Federal judge John Penfield Jackson&#39;s November 1999 ruling in the anti-trust case against Microsoft is a classic example of lawless "law." Just what specific law did Microsoft violate and how did they violate it?

While Judge Jackson&#39;s long pronouncement opens with a brief reference to sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman anti-trust act, this is little more than a passing formality. What follows is a lengthy exposition of theoretical conclusions about the economic meaning of Microsoft&#39;s actions. Is Microsoft supposed to have violated a theory or to have violated a law? What was it that they should have known in advance not to do?

Courts have declared laws against vagrancy to be void because of their vagueness, which gives the individual no clear understanding of just what they are supposed to do or not do. But vagrancy laws are a model of clarity compared to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which forbid conspiracies "in restraint of trade" or any "attempt to monopolize."

Just what does that mean? It means whatever Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson or any other federal judge says it means -- at least until they are reversed on appeal.

But what does it mean to a company that is supposed to obey this law? It means that there is no law, just a cloud of legal uncertainties, from which lightning can strike at any time.

In economics, "monopoly" means simply one seller. If you could invoke this provision of the Sherman Act only when there was just one seller, lots of Justice Department lawyers would be out of work, because there are very few products sold by only one company.

The ploy that prevents unemployment among anti-trust lawyers is to claim that some company sells a high percentage of some product -- or, in the rhetoric of anti-trust, "controls" a large share of the market. And the way to produce statistics showing large shares is to define the market as narrowly as possible.

Judge Jackson does this by defining the market for operating systems like Microsoft&#39;s Windows as being only those operating systems using Intel&#39;s processors and their clones. That means we don&#39;t count Apple computers or computer systems relying on the Linux computer language.

These kinds of definitional games have been played throughout the history of anti-trust "law." The net result is that there are statistics showing many more "dominant" companies with "market power" in these narrowly defined industries than there would be if industries were defined in some economically meaningful way. Judge Jackson&#39;s pronouncements are larded with such ominous rhetoric.

What also runs through Judge Jackson&#39;s statements -- and through the whole anti-trust tradition -- is a confusion between competitors and competition. Harm to Microsoft&#39;s competitors is equated with harm to competition in the software industry. But nothing harms particular competitors like competition.

When Microsoft spent &#036;100 million to develop its Internet browser and included it in Windows free of charge, to Judge Jackson that showed monopoly power and hurt competition. But why would a monopoly have to blow &#036;100 million to improve its product?

It was precisely because Microsoft was not as optimistic as Judge Jackson about a lack of competition that they spent the money to keep their customers. Is it a violation of law to operate on a different economic theory than the one a judge believes in?

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that Microsoft was guilty of every terrible thing the Judge came up with. All the contract provisions he doesn&#39;t like can be forbidden and all the competitors who were supposed to have been harmed can be compensated to the tune of millions of dollars.

Why then is the Justice Department involved? Because they want the power to oversee and second-guess the computer software industry. Microsoft&#39;s competitors in Silicon Valley may rejoice at its legal misfortunes, but once Washington bureaucrats start calling the shots in the computer industry, their joy may be very short-lived. Silicon Valley rivals of Microsoft could turn out to be like those Democrats of a few years ago, who voted for special prosecutors as if they were only going to prosecute Republicans.

Here is column 2.

Fast computers and slow antitrust

FEW THINGS DEVELOP AS FAST as technological change in the computer industry. And few things are as slow as antitrust cases. So an antitrust case against a computer software company like Microsoft is about as big a combination of opposites as you can find.

Five years is breakneck speed for completion of a major antitrust case and it is not unknown for a decade or more to elapse before the appellate courts say the last word on one of these cases. Five years is at least two generations when it comes to computers. A decade ago, laptops were a novelty of the rich.

The idea of slowing down innovation in the computer industry to the glacial pace of the legal system is grotesque. Yet that is what the Justice Department&#39;s Antitrust Division tried to do when it asked the courts to stop the recent introduction of Microsoft&#39;s new Windows 98 operating system until the legal fine points could be argued out.

Antitrust law is so full of ambiguous phrases, mushy concepts and elusive definitions that it cannot really be considered law. Laws are supposed to tell you in advance what you can and cannot do, not just allow government officials to nail you when they don&#39;t like what you are doing or want you to do it their way.

Antitrust cases can involve years of wrangling in the courts and many millions of dollars in legal fees, even when the plain facts of the case are not in serious dispute. That is because the terms used have no clear and consistent meaning. Microsoft is accused of being a "monopoly" that uses its "power" to prevent rival software producers from being able to compete. The Justice Department claims to be trying to protect "competition" by reining in Microsoft&#39;s ability to exclude other companies&#39; software from its Windows operating system.

Let&#39;s begin at square one: Is Microsoft a "monopoly"? By the plain dictionary definition -- one seller -- it is not. Apple computers have a different operating system, for example. By an economic concept of monopoly -- a firm able to prevent other firms from engaging in the same activity -- it is likewise not a monopoly.

In antitrust law, however, numbers and percentages can be used to claim that a particular company "controls" a certain share of the existing market. If that share is very high, then the firm may be considered to be a rough equivalent of a monopoly.

Slippery words like "controls" insinuate what can seldom be plainly stated and proved. If a high percentage of the customers buy your product, that statistic after the fact does not prove that you controlled anything before the fact.

Those same customers can change their minds tomorrow and you will be history. That is why Microsoft keeps updating its operating system and adding new features. If it really controlled its market, it could relax and let the good times roll, instead of constantly scrambling to stay ahead of its rivals and potential rivals.

While the Justice Department&#39;s Antitrust Division claims to be trying to protect "competition," it is in fact trying to protect competitors. Competition, like monopoly, is a set of conditions in the market. It cannot be reduced to an outcome like percentages of sales.

There is competition in boxing when the champion agrees to fight the leading challenger -- even if the champ knocks him out in the first round. Competition is about a set of initial conditions, not about outcomes.

The Antitrust Division wants to prescribe outcomes by asking the courts to force Microsoft to include rival Netscape&#39;s Internet software in its own Windows system. Some in the media have spread the disinformation that Microsoft makes it impossible to put non-Microsoft software in its system or on the Windows screen.

My own computer came with non-Microsoft software, including Netscape, on the Windows 95 screen -- and I didn&#39;t even order Netscape. The computer manufacturer put it there. Moreover, Windows is set up so that the consumer can easily install all sorts of other software. Why some media people don&#39;t bother to check out the simplest facts is beyond me.

Some media pundits have been calling Microsoft founder Bill Gates "arrogant" for dismissing the Justice Department&#39;s arguments as nonsense. But Gates&#39; real problem may be that he is not a lawyer, and so does not realize that much nonsense is already an established part of antitrust law and precedents.

[Rat Faced]

The Anti-Dumping Laws of the EU, if im thinking of the same thing; prohibit the import of products that are then sold on at a price less than they are in the domestic market of the exporting country.

Its therefore illegal to import and sell a photocopier here that was made in Korea for a price less than that product would be sold for in Korea.

It doesnt stop that photocopier being sold at a price less than the EU community industries can sell them for.... just look at KIA cars as an example.


As a contrast, the US anti-dumping Law is such that a product cannot be sold at less than the US companies can charge.... ie below their cost price.


In the case of Steel.. The workforce get paid more in the UK i believe, the Property Prices are higher, the raw materials cost more. The cost of British Steel was cheaper in the UK than it was in the US.

The only reason they could undercut the US steel companies was due to them being more efficient. That only happened in the last 20 years... and if you remember, getting British Steel into an efficient company was a painful process.


I believe the WTO has recently given the EU permission to enact Trade Sanctions on the US as it was found to be breaking International Law in this area, and that of the Steel Imports...

[clocker]

Lefty,

Because...&nbsp; Netscape didn&#39;t die out due to it&#39;s quality. It died because people just accepted IE because it came with Windows. This is the crux of the matter. I thought everyone involved in this debate understood this.
So let&#39;s see...people decided to use IE, not because of any presumed superiority, simply because they are stupid and lazy and MS gave it to them.
So we need the government to step in and protect us from our cupidity and sloth.

You asked twice why we should have a Windows without all the goodies. Twice I had to tell you that the EU is asking for M&#036; to produce 2 versions. Not get rid of Windows as we know it.
No I didn&#39;t.
I asked that you demonstrate how you are being harmed by MS&#39;s inclusion of the extras.
So far I haven&#39;t seen any proof that you have suffered at all.
You have free and easy access to any browser, media player, etc. that you choose and Windows will allow you to install it and use it.
You simply assume that if MS stops giving these things away then magically, better and more useful versions will appear.
So what?
Who is stopping their development now?
If you don&#39;t want to play with the big boys, then don&#39;t enter the arena.

All I see is MS being fined because it&#39;s big and successful, they dominate a market that they basically invented.
I&#39;d sure hate to start a business knowing that at some nebulous point, after I became a success, that the government was going to step in and fine me because I was too good at what I do.
Kinda puts a damper on the ole entepeneurial spirit.
"You can be just so good at what you do, then we whack you off at the knees.
But God forbid that we actually define where that point may be...
Have a nice day."

I feel your pain, Lefty.

[ilw]

When Microsoft spent &#036;100 million to develop its Internet browser and included it in Windows free of charge, to Judge Jackson that showed monopoly power and hurt competition. But why would a monopoly have to blow &#036;100 million to improve its product?

I rather think the author has missed (or is it sidestepped) the point, I always thought the problem was that microsoft used their monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another area. The inclusion of IE in windows was not to increase the windows share o fthe market, but rather to increase its share of the browser market. Microsoft gains the money of selling a browser automatically with sales of its other product by slipstreaming one into the other and also wiped out netscape which was its only real competition in the browser market. Just for the record i always thought navigator was way better than IE back in the day, though at the time i was a total internet noob. :D

The browser wars are imo a perfect case in point of why antitrust law does sometimes work(if only too slowly), when IE and navigator were on an equal footing, there was the constant competition and technological improvement, but IE took over and development stopped almost completely. Its only these days that competition and development in browsers has really picked up again, and even now its seems like its just opera and mozilla scrapping over the 5% or so of more software savvy internet users.

If anyone needs a bit of a refresher on hte browser wars (I did) I went looking and i found this:

By mid-1995, popular culture had begun to notice the World Wide Web. Netscape Navigator was the de facto standard for web browsing at that time; its competition consisted only of a few browsers such as Mosaic and Lynx which were being developed on university campuses. Microsoft saw the success of Netscape and recognized the potential of the web, and licensed Mosaic as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0 which it released as part of the Microsoft Windows 95 Plus Pack in August 1995. Internet Explorer 2.0 was released three months later, and by then the race was on.

New versions of Netscape Navigator (later Netscape Communicator) and Internet Explorer were released at a rapid pace over the following few years. Features often took priority over bug fixes, and therefore the browser wars were a time of unstable browsers, frequent crashes, security holes, and lots of user headaches. Internet Explorer only began to approach its competition with version 3.0 (1996), which offered scripting support and the market&#39;s first commercial cascading style sheets implementation.
...
Microsoft had two strong advantages in the browser wars. One was simply an issue of resources: Netscape began with near-90% market share and a good deal of public goodwill, but as a relatively small company deriving the great bulk of its income from what was essentially a single product (Navigator and its derivatives), it was financially vulnerable. Netscape&#39;s total revenue never exceeded the interest income generated by Microsoft&#39;s cash on hand.

The other, more important, advantage was that Microsoft Windows had a monopoly in the operating system marketplace and could be used to leverage IE to a dominant position. IE was bundled with every copy of Windows; therefore, even though early versions of IE were markedly inferior to Netscape&#39;s browser, Microsoft was still able to grow its market share. And IE remained free while the enormous revenues from Windows were used to fund its development and marketing, resulting in rapid improvements until it was so similar to Netscape that users had no desire to download and install Netscape.

Other Microsoft actions also hurt Netscape, such as:

Netscape&#39;s business model was to give away its browser but sell server software. Microsoft understood this and attacked Netscape&#39;s revenue sources, bundling Microsoft&#39;s Internet Information Server web server "free" with server versions of Windows, and offering Microsoft customers workalike clones of Netscape&#39;s proxy server, mail server, news server, and other software free or at steep discounts. This didn&#39;t have much effect at first, as much of Netscape&#39;s revenues came from customers using Sun Microsystems servers, but the gradual result was to make Windows NT more popular as a server for Internet and intranet while cutting off Netscape&#39;s income.
Microsoft created licensing agreements with computer manufacturers requiring them to provide desktop icons for IE, while penalizing them for shipping Netscape on their computers.
Microsoft made it very easy for small and medium ISPs to release branded versions of Internet Explorer, and with few exceptions they did, meaning that users of many ISPs were encouraged to use Internet Explorer and not Netscape.
Microsoft created a licensing agreement with AOL to base AOL&#39;s primary interface on IE rather than Netscape.
Microsoft purchased and released a web authoring tool, FrontPage, that tended to create pages that looked better in IE.
Microsoft included support for CSS in IE and made IE more tolerant than Netscape of poorly-constructed HTML (such as generated by some web authoring tools). Some web designers found it easier to write their pages for IE only than to fix bad HTML or to support Netscape&#39;s LAYER extensions.

The effect of these actions were to "cut off Netscape&#39;s air supply," as stated by a Microsoft executive during the Microsoft antitrust case, and this (together with several bad business decisions on Netscape&#39;s part) led to Netscape&#39;s defeat by the end of 1998, after which the company was acquired by America Online for USD &#036;4.2 billion. Internet Explorer became the new dominant browser, and has since attained 96% of the web browser market share, more than Netscape ever had at its peak.

Microsoft&#39;s actions also earned it two prosecutions for antitrust violations, both of them involving Microsoft&#39;s use of its monopoly status to manipulate the market.

The browser wars ended when Internet Explorer ceased to have any serious competition for its market share. This also brought an end to the rapid innovation in web browsers; there have been no new versions of Internet Explorer since version 6.0, released in 2001 (which itself was little different from version 5.5, as the main purpose of version 6.0 was to bundle it with Windows XP).

[Busyman]

......and this harmed me the user how?

America Online seemed powerful enough to continue development. They have the largest base of internet users in America. <_<

I have no problem with IE personally and have used other browsers.
(I do use Webtabs with it though)

It seems to me, according to arguments of some of you, that MS should not include any features whatsoever. Operating systems should only be shells..oops...I mean only Windows.

What if IE includes a tabbed interface. I would stop using the Webtabs add-on.

They therefore crushed Webtabs.

The first step for a competitor is to make their product better......

....but second step is to market it so everyone knows about it.

Real Player does not kick WMP in the ass.
Others may be better but there&#39;s no marketing.

Even on the OS front, Linux sucks right now. An example of this is to put Linux on the store shelves and see how many people buy it. It&#39;s too buggy right now.

btw no one here has demonstrated how you the consumer has been harmed.
Especially as you sit on your Windows computer and are using products like Firebird and BSPlayer. :lol: :lol: :lol:

NO ONE.

So far the main complaint against Microsoft is because of certain inclusions of features, it leaves security holes.

It&#39;s the main target of viruses and worms. Well I guess it would be since has most of the market.

Use the logic.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lefty,


Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Because... Netscape didn&#39;t die out due to it&#39;s quality. It died because people just accepted IE because it came with Windows. This is the crux of the matter. I thought everyone involved in this debate understood this.
[/b]

So let&#39;s see...people decided to use IE, not because of any presumed superiority, simply because they are stupid and lazy and MS gave it to them.
So we need the government to step in and protect us from our cupidity and sloth.
[/b]

It would be more accurate and less emotive to say "not very computer literate and unaware of the alternatives" as opposed to "stupid and lazy" but on the whole.. yes that is correct.


Originally posted by clocker

Originally posted by leftism

You asked twice why we should have a Windows without all the goodies. Twice I had to tell you that the EU is asking for M&#036; to produce 2 versions. Not get rid of Windows as we know it.


No I didn&#39;t.


Excellent&#33; You know your lying about this area of our discussion, you know that this can be checked by reading back through this thread. Your banking on the fact that I won&#39;t go through the tedious process of backtracing our conversation to prove your being deceitful.

Bad luck old chap, I&#39;ve got plenty of time on my hands today and I&#39;m going to waste some of it by showing your deceit. :)

The exchange I&#39;ve just posted followed on from this....


Originally posted by clocker


Originally posted by leftism

You brought up the same argument twice and I had to provide you with the same factual answer twice. (and you accuse me of not reading posts&#33;) What kind of response did you expect?

Lefty, at some point in the future you will realize that simply because you post an answer it does not automatically become " factual".
You have, as have I, been posting opinions.


we back track further....


Originally posted by clocker


Originally posted by leftism

We&#39;ve already been through this clocker. I dont want to be rude but please pay attention.

I just love being patronized.
Please keep it up.


So whats this all about? is it due to "I asked that you demonstrate how you are being harmed by MS&#39;s inclusion of the extras."

Let&#39;s see.....


Originally posted by leftism



Originally posted by clocker

Who is forcing MS to lower their price?
There is no significant competitor to Windows, so now you just the OS stripped of some of the goodies that used to be included.


We&#39;ve already been through this clocker. I dont want to be rude but please pay attention. If the EU get their way you will still be able to buy the standard version of Windows with all the "goodies" it currently has.


Have we already "been through this"?


Originally posted by leftism

The EU isn&#39;t demanding M&#036; remove WMP from all versions of Windows, they just want them to offer a version that doesn&#39;t include WMP.


Ah yes.. see you were lying :)

Finally after dealing with your delaying tactic lets get back to the point.


Originally posted by clocker
I asked that you demonstrate how you are being harmed by MS&#39;s inclusion of the extras.
So far I haven&#39;t seen any proof that you have suffered at all.

We&#39;ve been through this <_< .


Originally posted by leftism

I&#39;m also a little more tech savvy than your average middle aged "just bought a stupidly overpriced PC from PC World for the family" user. Just because it doesn&#39;t affect me personally, it doesn&#39;t mean the point is invalid.


Yet another area needlessly re-addressed due to your deficiencies...


Originally posted by clocker
You simply assume that if MS stops giving these things away then magically, better and more useful versions will appear.
So what?
Who is stopping their development now?


Missed the point again. There are better versions available but people are not using them. This is due to the M&#036; monopoly not quality issues.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
All I see is MS being fined because it&#39;s big and successful, they dominate a market that they basically invented.
I&#39;d sure hate to start a business knowing that at some nebulous point, after I became a success, that the government was going to step in and fine me because I was too good at what I do.
Kinda puts a damper on the ole entepeneurial spirit.
"You can be just so good at what you do, then we whack you off at the knees.
But God forbid that we actually define where that point may be...
Have a nice day."

I feel your pain, Lefty[/quote]

Due to some worsening medical condition that seems similar to Alzheimers I doubt you can feel anything at all.

Just keep on repeating this to yourself till you remember it and understand it.

"Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another area"

Perhaps when that oh so simple concept has been grasped we can return to the issue.

imo this is all a bunch of anti-European crap. Some US citizens appear to be in shock and awe of the fact that a European organisation can tell one of the US&#39;s biggest companies what they can and can&#39;t do in the European continent. "Such audacity&#33; We&#39;re a super power God dang it&#33;"

I guess the fact that the US Department of Justice failed so miserably in the same area just adds to the humiliation.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
btw no one here has demonstrated how you the consumer has been harmed.
Especially as you sit on your Windows computer and are using products like Firebird and BSPlayer.

NO ONE.
[/quote]

Well I suppose if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most users arent as computer literate as the people here. (how many people here know about klite compared to the numbr of people who use Kazaa?) then... yeah you might have a point.

If you also ignore the Netscape fiasco you might have a point.

If you also ignore the fact that this point has been addressed time and time again you might have a point.

Oh wait...... no.. Ive just checked, and you definitely don&#39;t have a point.

[clocker]

Hmmm....apparently this has gone on for too long.
Lefty, your reversion to silly personal insults and your insistence on politicising this little debate with your favorite "American jingoism" rants has finally lead me to withdraw.
I have nothing to learn from you.

Bye.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@14 May 2004 - 15:10
Hmmm....apparently this has gone on for too long.
Lefty, your reversion to silly personal insults and your insistence on politicising this little debate with your favorite "American jingoism" rants has finally lead me to withdraw.
I have nothing to learn from you.

Bye.
I keep telling you guys this but you get sucked in everytime. :lol: :lol: :lol:
It&#39;s funny watching it unfold.

IGNORE HER. <_<

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hmmm....apparently this has gone on for too long.
Lefty, your reversion to silly personal insults and your insistence on politicising this little debate with your favorite "American jingoism" rants has finally lead me to withdraw.
I have nothing to learn from you.

Bye.
[/b]

And with that we depart from the topic.... :rolleyes:

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I keep telling you guys this but you get sucked in everytime.&nbsp; &nbsp;
It&#39;s funny watching it unfold.

IGNORE HER. [/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: