EU Crosshair Still Points at Microsoft

Muhaha! by Da+Fokka · 2002-11-05 02:42 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The EU at least knows where the REAL war should be fought ;)

Re:Muhaha! by lawman5 · 2002-11-05 02:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

There was a time when I actually liked slashdot. Lately however, it's become so Anti-Microsoft - it's almost ridiculous. Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you. Oh yea - I keep forgetting - most slashdot readers are just a bunch of college kids anyway. Someday - when you all enter the real world - you'll understand how great much (not all) of the Microsoft technology is and come over to the real world with the rest of us. 'Stuff that Matters' is really 'Stuff that gets me home to my family earlier'
Re:Muhaha! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:02 · Score: 1, Funny

Well, I'm one of those in "real world", whose life would be way easier if there was no Microsoft.

As it stands now, it is "stuff that holds me at work when I could spend that time with my family".
Re:Muhaha! by Da+Fokka · 2002-11-05 03:23 · Score: 1

I admit that my comment wasn't very mature, I'm not as anti-microsoft as the comment suggests.

But I don't agree with you either. The possible loss of jobs shouldn't be a concern in anti-trust rulings. It surely wasn't an argument for microsoft in their competition.
Re:Muhaha! by azizlumiere · 2002-11-05 03:26 · Score: 0

Actually, in my opinion, The register is worse than slashdot to troll Microsoft but they are less funny : they don't show Microsoft ads while they bash them.

--
-Linux is SO fast it does an infinite loop in 5 seconds.
Re:Muhaha! by OrangeSpyderMan · 2002-11-05 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fool. And what about those who worked for BeOS? Or any of those who worked for any of the companies that MS has tried to crush into oblivion (Netscape, RealAudio, SGI, Corel, Lotus, need I go on?). I don't mind you earning a living at all, but don't try and make out that MS is all about feeding children and building families, cos it ain't, it's about a handful of people getting really wealthy at the expense of a lot of other people. They only pay you at all because the haven't (yet) found a way to get wealthy without paying you. If they had, you'd know about it very quickly. I am, unfortunately, one of the people for whom MS does everything but get me home to my family early.

--
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Re:Muhaha! by IamTheRealMike · 2002-11-05 03:43 · Score: 1, Flamebait

There was a time when I actually liked slashdot. Lately however, it's become so Anti-Microsoft - it's almost ridiculous. Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you.
My heart bleeds. Perhaps Slashdot has become so anti-microsoft lately because Microsoft have been ramping up the rate at which they give people reasons to dislike them?
Re:Muhaha! by kcelery · 2002-11-05 04:01 · Score: 1

Those who were crushed to oblivion(...) and those lined up to face the firing squad should learn that "the bigger they are, the stronger their enemy is". Their life is doomed, days numbered. And they themselves are ones to be blamed. What a stupid corporate decision to make by supporting a MS only platform. Did any one of the mentioned company shell out a budget to support an alternate OS such as LINUX, BSD, BeOS or even MAC. When these company demonstrated a successful business model, the devil comes in to "embrace and extend". There is no way that any of these companies could survive, the reason is simple, they themselves were feeding their own enemy.
Re:Muhaha! by OrangeSpyderMan · 2002-11-05 04:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Did any one of the mentioned company shell out a budget to support an alternate OS such as LINUX, BSD, BeOS or even MAC

In a word, yes. Netscape was available on just about everything, BeOS obviously spent a great deal of their time supporting non-MS Windows platforms, given that they were one themselves (WTF?). Corel not only had WordPerfect running on Linux (albeit with WINE), they even had a linux distro. SGI, apart from their IRIX platform has a technology called OpenGL that is available on just about anything. What was your point again?

--
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Re:Muhaha! by Isle · 2002-11-05 04:31 · Score: 1, Offtopic

And Iraq has 1.5 million soldiers that almost all have families and children to feed, I guess we attack them then...

(I hope that didnt sound too pro or anti anything except this type of argument)
Re:Muhaha! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:51 · Score: 0

...there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you.

Are you are implying that all 60k MS employees lack the ability to earn an equivalent living in an economy where Microsoft ceased to exist? Surely at least some of you would be able to find a way to make a living... your job skills are relevant outside of the MS corporate structure, aren't they?

Or is it the discomforting thought of having to look for another position that brings you to use this argument? Then you are saying that people with a gripe against Microsoft should modify their views because it makes you uncomfortable? Gee, that seems arrogant.

Perhaps your concerns are unrelated to your monthly paycheck, but instead arise from a desire to protect your stock options. If that is the case, and you are truly relying on the possibility of future income to meet your current obligations, then I would suggest that you get some remedial financial counseling.
Re:Muhaha! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 06:49 · Score: 0

There was a time when I actually liked Microsoft. Lately however, it's become so Anti-Competitive and non-innovative - it's absolutely ridiculous. Keep in mind that there are over 500 million victims of Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you, but you would rather deprive us of our income. Oh yea - I keep forgetting - most Microsoft employees are just a bunch of college kids anyway. Someday - when you all enter the real world - you'll understand how harmful some (not all) of the Microsoft's empire is and come over to the real world with the rest of us. 'Where would you like to go today' is really 'Pay the Gateskeeper - You have no choice'.
Re:Muhaha! by geekee · 2002-11-05 13:33 · Score: 1

BeOS died because nobody wants their product. That's free market at work. MS is being threatened by force of govt. because people want their product too much. That's an infringment on a civil liberty by the govt. There's a big difference. You shouldn't call someone a fool and put forth such a poor argument.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Muhaha! by steveg · 2002-11-06 05:05 · Score: 1

People don't want their product too much.

In many cases, people can't [easily] get anything else.

You can build a machine with no MS products. You can go to a custom builder and get an MS-free system. But you cannot just go to a store or a major manufacturer and ask for an MS-free system. Well, you can ask, but they'll say no because MS has the manufacturers locked in. Since most people are not capable of building their own or even finding a custom builder, the choice is not effectively offered to them. There is no free market in this case.

Microsoft should not be prevented from selling their wares in a free market. They should be prevented from locking out all other options.

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. MS is. It's not illegal to use dirty tricks to get ahead. (Immoral, but not illegal.) MS does. But it is illegal to be a monopoly and to use dirty tricks to maintain and extend that monopoly.

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Re:Muhaha! by geekee · 2002-11-06 17:41 · Score: 1

Antitrust legislation is immoral since it sacrifices an individual's freedom for "the good of society". I have no problem with anyone breaking these laws since they're absurd. True MS must abide by the rulings (or leave the country to avoid some of the consequences), but I think it's a good form of civil disobedience. A consumer has no apriori right to a product or service provided by someone else. Otherwise the provider would be a slave to the customer. If no one's willing to provide a machine with BeOS preinstalled because they can't negotiate a contract with MS while providing this service, no one's rights have been violated. Every producer made his choice freely. To say that there is no free market in your example is absurd. Consumers only have the right to negotiate with sellers for products. They have no apriori right to a product or service provided by someone else.

--
Vote for Pedro

This almost.... by mrgrey · 2002-11-05 02:42 · Score: 1, Funny

Reminds me of the games we used to play at ModelUN. Hey, so we were geeks. Give us a break...

--
-Tolerate my intolerance

Re:This almost.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 14:47 · Score: 0

Well we all hope M$ will not buy the verdit in EU. Monoply like M$ should be banned from EU since they are either crushing or buying the competition in US market. M$ has no creativity it is time to bring the M$ beast down.

Does the EU have power? by TamMan2000 · 2002-11-05 02:46 · Score: 0, Redundant

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?

Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...

Re:Does the EU have power? by BabyDave · 2002-11-05 02:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

Tell that to Nintendo.
Re:Does the EU have power? by meringuoid · 2002-11-05 02:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do? Seems to me like they couldn't do much...
They can't split Microsoft, because they're a foreign corporation. They can, however, impose conditions on Microsoft which they will have to obey if they want to continue doing business in the EU.
It's unlikely to come to a trade war; EU business is too addicted to MS software to allow Brussels to impose punitive tariffs, for instance. Chances are MS will be fined a comparatively small amount and told not to do it again...

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Shimbo · 2002-11-05 02:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

Microsoft could be in line for fines totalling up to $2.5bn (£1.75bn) levied by the European Commission.

Nuff said.
Re:Does the EU have power? by cobbaut · 2002-11-05 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

The EU is a bigger market than the US. They should be able to do more than the US government did...

Besides this, more and more EU countries are switching to Linux solutions (see previous /. stories).

--
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
Re:Does the EU have power? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 02:52 · Score: 0

They could give MS a fine of 10% of the company's year turnover. In this case it's quite a big su
Re:Does the EU have power? by Branc0 · 2002-11-05 02:55 · Score: 0

They should be able to do more than the US government did...
If we were talking about an EU based company, yes they could do several things, beeing MS an American company there isn't much to do.
Of course they could always say: "If you want to sell Windows in Europe you have to get rid of that IE, that Media Player, that Outlook and every crappy software you bundle with Windows."

--

rm -rf /home/leia
Re:Does the EU have power? by MoobY · 2002-11-05 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

> Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?

Note that Europe is growing bigger than the US every minute, not only in population, which will soon be over 500 million (200million more than the US, IIRC), but also economically. Europe isn't some small kid the US can wack down! It's insane to think that Europe doesn't have any power and pretty US-narrow-minded.

--
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Re:Does the EU have power? by albanac · 2002-11-05 03:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Firstly, they can (and have in the past) impose fairly epic fine levels on companies they feel to be Not Nice People. The recent Nintendo judgement was relatively leniant.

Secondly, they can ban sales of bundled os + integrated apps within the EU by MS. And they can do it without having any impact on people like SuSE; that is in fact one of the courses already discussed by the commissioner in question.

Thirdly, they can adjudge MS' EULA's illegal under EU human rights laws. This is another remedy which has been discussed.

Basically, they can make life very hard for MS in the market from which MS derives it's larges revenues (they sell more software here than there).

~cHris
Re:Does the EU have power? by pubjames · 2002-11-05 03:12 · Score: 2

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?

The EU can fine Microsoft upto I believe 10% of its global revenue, so it is a very big deal indeed.

Don't underestimate them. They have shown there teeth on several occasions recently and seem less frightened to use their powers than the authorities in the USA have shown. It's not so easy for corporations to engage in "lobbying" to get their own way in the EU as it is in the USA.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Timesprout · 2002-11-05 03:14 · Score: 1

They can force MS to subsidise EU banana exports to the Caribbean and Latin America

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Does the EU have power? by CaptainZapp · 2002-11-05 03:26 · Score: 1

Chances are MS will be fined a comparatively small amount and told not to do it again...

If they are found guilty and (likely) fined it will be a hefty fine. Ask Tetra Pack, Volkswagen, Roche or Nintendo about the EUs take on anti competitive behavior.

--
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Re:Does the EU have power? by jasonditz · 2002-11-05 03:35 · Score: 2

They could certainly try to split them up if they want, remember they managed to single handedly stop the GE-Honeywell merger.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:45 · Score: 0

America is 50 states. The EU is an attempt to bind together a little more than a dozen countries in what will almost certainly end up being the same arrangement.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Branc0 · 2002-11-05 03:52 · Score: 0

If I had to buy a browser you can bet I wouldn't buy IE. Open Source would win!

--

rm -rf /home/leia
Re:Does the EU have power? by Roxy · 2002-11-05 03:54 · Score: 2, Informative

> Could someone explain what the EU has power
> to do?
>
> Seems to me like they couldn't do much...
Check out the General Electric and Honeywell merger attempt recently. The US authorities said OK to the deal, but the EU authorities refused it on anti-competitive grounds. End of merger! You gotta love a global economy...

As well as ignorant /. readers ....

--
-- Roland Buresund MBA, MCMI, CISSP
Re:Does the EU have power? by pldms · 2002-11-05 04:06 · Score: 2, Funny

They can force MS to subsidise EU banana exports to the Caribbean and Latin America
We, the people of the Caribbean and Latin America have more than enough bananas. Please send no more.

--
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
Re:Does the EU have power? by kcelery · 2002-11-05 04:09 · Score: 1

Next year they'll raise the price by 10%. A market without competitor means, you have to pay whatever MS is setting.
Re:Does the EU have power? by mysticgoat · 2002-11-05 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

European courts could find that Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices and void part, or all, of the EULAs involved. That could create a gray market of epic proportions. It would also allow european software houses to embrace and extend the microsoft products in ways that would be illegal elsewhere.

I'm not saying that this is a likely outcome, but it is one of the things that a band of sovereign nations could do.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:58 · Score: 0

stopping a merger is a diferent thing than trying to split a company. All in all, EU will probably not wish to flex their weak muscles. Personally, I wish they would nail MS and show that they are above being bought.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Olaznog+(c) · 2002-11-05 05:22 · Score: 1

Yea, well, in the EU Microsoft is a foreign corporation, so the european economy is not so Micrsotf-full. Maybe they could try to do a little more than the USA goverment :)

Actually, the EU has far more power than you can imagine. There are allready lots of posts with good examples. Take a look al them.

--
Por si alguno no lo había notado, USA NO es el centro del mundo.
Re:Does the EU have power? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 06:48 · Score: 0

Yes, it certainly is growing bigger! And you know why? Because it's a continent, dipshit. An entire continent of other countries that decided to join. Of COURSE the population is going to be larger.

And it's "whack," not "wack."
Re:Does the EU have power? by shren · 2002-11-05 07:19 · Score: 2

So is that 1/20th or 1/40th of Microsoft's cash reserves?

--
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:Does the EU have power? by mijok · 2002-11-05 07:54 · Score: 0

I've already put this in one comment but I think it's worth repeating: Thirdly, they can adjudge MS' EULA's illegal under EU human rights laws. This is another remedy which has been discussed. the EULAs are completely 100% absolutely invalid in the EU already - I've checked a EU consumer rights page (sorry, I don't have the link here right now) which in a FAQ on software purchases explicitly stated that no "click-through" agreement is valid

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:Does the EU have power? by mijok · 2002-11-05 07:56 · Score: 0

i'm repeating myself but this is worth repeating: European courts could find that Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices and void part, or all, of the EULAs involved.
the EULAs are completely 100% absolutely invalid in the EU already - I've checked a EU consumer rights page (sorry, I don't have the link here right now) which in a FAQ on software purchases explicitly stated that no "click-through" agreement is valid

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:Does the EU have power? by sireenmalik · 2002-11-05 09:01 · Score: 1

Remember General Electric-Honeywell!!!

--

Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
Re:Does the EU have power? by jasonditz · 2002-11-05 11:06 · Score: 1

They're not really above being bought, they just have different bidders.

That's where the merger halt came from in the first place, the desire to keep European companies that donate heavily to them competitive.
Re:Does the EU have power? by veltyen · 2002-11-05 13:09 · Score: 1

The point is Microsoft will need to change, or they will get fined again. And again. And again. And Again.

At a billion euros a pop, it won't take long to make redmond nervous.

Veltyen
Re:Does the EU have power? by albanac · 2002-11-07 04:17 · Score: 2

Difference between "Invalid: MS will lose if they take you to court for breaking it" and "Illegal: the EU will pull your product from the shelves unless you alter this". Which is what I believe was discussed.

~cHris
Re:Does the EU have power? by mijok · 2002-11-07 05:42 · Score: 0

This is getting off-topic but your explanation is contradictory - why would the EU request a change to an agreement if the whole agreement is already invalid and thus can be ignored anyway?

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?

My 2 cents by mirko · 2002-11-05 02:46 · Score: 1

I guess at the end they'll eventually open their APIs in order to get complete legal acceptance.
But this will only demonstrate how their docs and apps are deeply managed by the system... making these unavoidable at that time...

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.

Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by 2000+Britneys · 2002-11-05 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some common sense. I mean cmon if quacks like a duck, looks like a duck it must be a duck.

As for myself I would love to see some of the major computer makers (Dell, Gateway, Compaq, IBM) start pushing Linux and other OSes with their hardware.

Re:Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by ch-chuck · 2002-11-05 03:49 · Score: 1

if quacks like a duck, looks like a duck

If I were a cartoonist I'd love to draw a cartoon showing a wooden duck decoy in the water near a hunter in the weeds blowing on a duck call and holding a shotgun. Nearby a couple of real ducks are paddling around, one is suspicious of the decoy but the other says, "Come on Mally, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck..."

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by Jaysyn · 2002-11-05 03:50 · Score: 1

Well , if the EU bans sales of Windows to Europe, they (Dell & such) will HAVE to get another solution going or not be able to sell thier PC's in Europe. Or sell them bare, which probably isn't a good idea if someone's expecting an OS on the PC when it gets to his house.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:33 · Score: 0

This is as extreme as a case of it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, is tested to be genetically identical to a duck, is used as the picture for "duck" in the dictionary, etc....
Re:Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by Snoopy77 · 2002-11-05 10:18 · Score: 1

If quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and floats like a duck then it must be made out of wood. And if it is made out of wood then it must be a witch. Burn her, burn her I say!

Note to moderators: If you don't get it don't mod down, just rent Monty Python and the Holy Grail, put some nappies on and poo yourself laughing.

--
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Re:Maybe the people in EU actualy have.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 17:50 · Score: 0

As soon as they make linux more user friendly, so far Windows XP comes bundled with all the drivers that linux doesn't [making it easy to install anything on], it runs as fast as linux, and
it doesn't crash, I had it running consistently for about a month, I just heard today that one of our clients had a terrible crash on their Mandrake Linux box that was supposed manage several healthcare applications, it is not working at all.. I'm slightly hoping they get Windows XP because I have 9 CORBA orbs running on
my XP P2-500, 6 of them are PIDS, running in Java flawlessly on Windows XP..

I would normally be the guy saying, hey we need to get linux.. Now I'm thinking, um, linux for the firewall, ya that's it, but we'll have Windows XP behind it.. The people pushing Windows XP are in favor of ease of use and quickness to
configuration, its been made easier with the help of Cygwin.. But I really don't like the parts in Windows XP that force me to do things I don't like to do like register the OS.. But then again
if we think of it this way, Windows is an American OS, and the only reason everyone else is
for linux is probably because linux is not only an American OS.. Its kinda like a German saying "damnit I hate Philips, they make cruddy CD players". If it keeps the money coming to America, more power to Bill..

Three problems by MosesJones · 2002-11-05 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.

3) When the EU has ruled against US product before (growth hormone is not allowed in beef sold in the EU) the US claims it is a restraint of trade and raises it to the EU.

So what will probably happen is MS will rightly be found guilty, they will ignore the remedy, and when it is enforced they will bleat to the president who will "defend US interests", he will ignore the rights of foreign courts and claim this is purely anti-competative and anti-US rather than being a different resolution applied to EXACTLY the same finding of guilt found in the US.

Personally I hope the EU stands up and gives them a bloody nose, and makes its move over to Open Source even quicker.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Three problems by albanac · 2002-11-05 02:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

All of your points are accurate. WRT the first two, however, there is no way the US could (under legal arenas) challenge an EU court ruling, and I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try. The one piece of information you didn't catch is that some four months ago, when the EU declared it's intention to pursue MS independently of the US DOJ, the State Deparmemnt immediately issued sabre-rattlings to the effect that if the EU attempted to do anything different or more realistic than the DOJ had done, the US would embark on an immediate and GDP-wide trade-war against the entire EU, covering everything from steel to immigration visas, until the EU backed off. The EUs response was to ignore them.
~cHris
Re:Three problems by sydlexic · 2002-11-05 03:05 · Score: 4, Funny

if what you say is true (and we of the sheep have no reason to doubt), then the EU ranks right up there with the rest of those wrongdoing terrorist organizations and we should exercise our god given right to pre-emptively smite then into oblivion! fetche le hellfire!
Re:Three problems by MrFredBloggs · 2002-11-05 03:09 · Score: 1

But then you`d have literally every other country on the planet against you! As it is you don't have many. I`m not sure how long the "country formerlly known as the Land Of The Free" can survive on its own!
Re:Three problems by sql*kitten · 2002-11-05 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.

The EU courts don't always agree with the courts of the member countries, which is fortunate since it is far from unanimous amongst voters that the EU should take precedence over national sovereignty. And EU member countries freely ignore the EU courts.

So what will probably happen is MS will rightly be found guilty, they will ignore the remedy

More likely is that MS will ignore the EU court, as most EU members do, and nothing will happen until national governments (most likely the Germans or Spanish, who seem to be the most unfriendly to MS) take an interest.
Re:Three problems by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 03:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

That might have to do with the fact that steel tarifs were pushed through with no regard to Europe or Asia. And the EU has decided that if the US will use tarifs against the global rules it pushes than they have to be flexible when it comes to their own local interests also. The US economy is currently bolster by 2/3s income coming from internal consumer spending and debt. Consumer confidence is starting to slip. Foreign markets are important and not pissing off large markets will need to be taken into account. With China developing its own os and chipsets, India moving to open source. The foreign market is shrinking for Microsoft. So it might want to play ball with documentation of its api's. Or it can squeeze more money out of its current customers with subscriber based liscenses (wait I believe that is happening). I don't like governments interferring with trade but this includes governments enforcing global trade laws that limit countries from starting their own products. All and all it is silly but at the end a government needs to take care of its industries and peoples and if it needs to limit an external company than it has a right to do such. Be it the EU telling off microsoft or GWBush and steel tarifs.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Re:Three problems by sydlexic · 2002-11-05 03:15 · Score: 1, Offtopic

But then you`d have literally every other country on the planet against you!

what is this you say? you mean that's not the intent of our current foreign policy? must rethink slavish lemming-like devotion to the party.
Re:Three problems by pubjames · 2002-11-05 03:19 · Score: 5, Informative

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.

This stuff doesn't really matter but the EU is dealing with trade within the EU zone. So it doesn't really matter that much what the US thinks. And don't assume that the US can just do whatever it wants and get away with it. There's something called the WTO, which has ruled heavily against the US and in favour of the EU recently with regards to steel tarrifs. It's true that the US is a big bully, but the EU is growing and seems increasingly confident fighting back.
Re:Three problems by nutshell42 · 2002-11-05 03:40 · Score: 1

Thank God MS isn't a independent nation yet.
The reason why member states can ignore the EU court now and then is that many decisions in the Union still have to be unanimous so it's normally less trouble for the rest of the countries and the commission simply to ignore such things.
M$ will pay (I hope) like the rest (while concrete conditions perhaps are more useful, fines like the 462mio EUR -which is currently the highest ever- could also be effective. It should even get m$ thinking about how to avoid such things in the future)

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Three problems by Jeppe+Salvesen · 2002-11-05 03:46 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter to Microsoft what the US government thinks if the result is that EU-wide sales of Microsoft products plummets. Taken to the extreme, Microsoft assets could end up being confiscated unless Microsoft pays back the money they have illegally muscled away from businesses.

I think it will be extremely interesting to see how this plays out in case of a rather strict remedy. The EU is becoming increasingly self-aware, and the US gov't is the US gov't.

Frankly, a large payback from Microsoft resulting from inflated prices would be a good way of kickstarting a sluggish economy (and would have been in the USA too). They've got 40 billion dollars on book, and some of it was acquired illegally.

--
Stop the brainwash
Re:Three problems by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:50 · Score: 0

"...they will bleat to the president who will "defend US interests", he will ignore the rights of foreign courts and claim this is purely anti-competative and anti-US..."

We're talking about George W(ar) Bush right? Wasn't he elected "most likely to start WWIII" in high school? I think he'll claim it as a terrorist act and try to pick a fight with them, that in addition to being held back from going to Iraq. A little war will help cool everyone's blood, don't you think?

I'm a conscientious objector.
-A what?
You know, a coward.
Re:Three problems by Alsee · 2002-11-05 04:10 · Score: 2

State Deparmemnt immediately issued sabre-rattlings to the effect that...

The only thing that suprized me there is that I hadn't heard about it. Do you happen to have a good link on it?

The EUs response was to ignore them.

Cool, thanx. (And I'm an American, chuckle)

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Three problems by nrosier · 2002-11-05 04:38 · Score: 2

When the EU has ruled against US product before (growth hormone is not allowed in beef sold in the EU) the US claims it is a restraint of trade and raises it to the EU.

This is IMHO not a restraint of trade. It just says US companies have to follow EU laws and rules, the same rules European companies have to apply to. I'm sure their are US rules (about safety of products e.g.) that force non-US companies to produce/ship different products than those sold on their home market.
US companies can export their beef, as long as it's growth hormone free. Where's the restriction? You apply to the rule.... you get to export it to the EU.

CKK's ruling in the US is just a joke. I hope the EU will do a better job.
Re:Three problems by shanewarneiskweer · 2002-11-05 04:38 · Score: 0

The EU is far more than a trading organisation. They are currently trying to produce a draft constitution and bill of rights.
Re:Three problems by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 05:03 · Score: 0

You can look at a draft of the constitution at
http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/sessple n/00 369.en2.pdf
Re:Three problems by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 10:42 · Score: 0

Offcource they ignore them, the U.S. is the one who would be harmed most by a trade war.
Re:Three problems by kir · 2002-11-05 16:09 · Score: 2

...the US would embark on an immediate and GDP-wide trade-war against the entire EU...

Wow! That's a pretty LOUD statement. You wouldn't happen to have a link to a news article or a statement release by the State Department... would you? I'd be really surprised if you provided one.

--
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
Re:Three problems by albanac · 2002-11-07 04:13 · Score: 2

As a matter of fact I don't, I saw the report that the BBC World Service did on it. Sorry, but the web is not my only source for information. It isn't even my primary source.

~cHris

Tough Cookie by mmport80 · 2002-11-05 02:48 · Score: 5, Informative

For those who don't know much about the EU's competition commisioner - he is a tough cookie and isn't afraid to take on large companies.

Look at what he did to Nintendo recently and also the $45bn GE and Honeywell merger - which he basically stopped - even thought the US would have allowed it. The last case shows what the competition commision thinks about "consistency".

Re:Tough Cookie by jazzbotley · 2002-11-05 03:07 · Score: 1

I don't see anyone raising the question of morality here. We all love to hate Microsoft, so anyone who hates my enemy is my friend? We all sit at the edge of the room and grouse about the elephant in the middle -- we assume that elephant is Microsoft. Riddle me this, Batman -- could Microsoft ever have risen to its present domination without government power doing its bidding? Regulation cuts both ways, and IMHO, tends to serve the established players in the market more than the consumers. So what if the big fat elephant is this overwhelming totalitarian state? We have learned nothing from the millions of casualties of the 20th century, served up on the platter of state-mandated wars. So we trudge onward, implementing ever more powerful governments in the hope that "this one won't be as bad as the last one." I hope we learn to limit the power of government before WWIII. *sigh* Probably not.

--

"Limited Government" will always exceed its bounds
Re:Tough Cookie by CatWrangler · 2002-11-05 03:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Well, I must assume then that Commissioner Mario Monti couldn't be French then, or the EU would have surrendered by now.
Microsoft could really shaft the EU by charging exorbitant fees for software they hold near monopolies on just to punish them. Microsoft could say, transport yourself to Linux, it is free after all.

--
---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--
Re:Tough Cookie by Diabolical · 2002-11-05 03:22 · Score: 2

And how would MicroSoft do this without hurting it's own sales? Did you think that MS earns most of it's money in the US? If MS would do that they would lose millions of dollars a day in loss of sales.

If the EU would transfer to Linux or any other OS. Would you think this to be a bad thing? Consider the whole new world and market for all those ISV's who are holding out now because of Linux's market share.

(come to think of it... that wouldn't be a bad thing at all.....)
Re:Tough Cookie by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:00 · Score: 0

"could Microsoft ever have risen to its present domination without government power doing its bidding?"

Yes it is called playing by the laws of the land something MS did very well. The real problem is when they broke those laws. I'll treat the rest of your comment as a poorly chosen analogy or a blatant troll.
Re:Tough Cookie by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:06 · Score: 0

Well, I must assume then that Commissioner Mario Monti couldn't be French then, or the EU would have surrendered by now.
If he were American he would try to kill 1000s civilians with napalm and then fly urgently back to the US before being killed.
Or maybe kill the local population with contaminated clothing if they are redskins.
Re:Tough Cookie by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 07:03 · Score: 0

Maybe your comment should be treated as sheer idiocy, since you obviously missed the point of the parent -- is Microsoft evil, or are governments evil in general (the EU specifically)? That's the elephant in reference, methinks.
Re:Tough Cookie by Mac+Degger · 2002-11-05 07:58 · Score: 2

Not really that tough: seems that Nintendo had made roughly 450 million with their illegal trade practices. They where fined 145 million. Which means they still made a cool 300 million by illegal means. What a wristslap...

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Tough Cookie by Noel · 2002-11-05 08:30 · Score: 2

...is Microsoft evil, or are governments evil in general?

Yes. And no.

Any organization (company, government, religion, whatever) large enough to wield significant power over a significant number of people has the potential to become evil. If the organization uses this power to enhance itself by harming others, then it has become evil.

Let's guess by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 02:48 · Score: 0

Bill buy french futuroscope to please french govt. Mmm.

Oh, I see. An EU trial will as usefull as the US anti-trust thing. Buying time for MS while spending taxpayer money. Great.

What the EU can do... by MosesJones · 2002-11-05 02:50 · Score: 5, Informative

1) Fine MS, this could be a small amount (say similar to the $150m it fined Nintendo) or a large amount (its MS what should the limit be).

2) Reorganise the way MS products are classified which could change the way they are taxed.

3) Ban certain products from being sold in the EU.

4) Declare certain individuals to be culpable for the violations and have them subject to arrest if they enter the EU.

Quite a few other things, saying they can't do much is like when President Bush demanded the Chinese do nothing to that spy plane.... so they sent it back in crates.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:What the EU can do... by TamMan2000 · 2002-11-05 03:00 · Score: 2

These are all steps in the right direction, but I don't really see any of them being any more effective than the slap on the wrist that they already got in the US.

To me, it seems like the EU is powerless to stop MS monopolistic practices.

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Re:What the EU can do... by Mr_Dyqik · 2002-11-05 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

The limit of the fines that the EU can levy is 10% of either profits or revenue (can't remember which) which would be a nice addition to the EU budget.

I assume they can also impose conditions that Microsoft have to meet to avoid the above.

They might also be able to recommend that EU governments stop using Microsoft products.
Re:What the EU can do... by Alsee · 2002-11-05 04:37 · Score: 1

They might also be able to recommend that EU governments stop using Microsoft products.

If that's all they end up doing, I'll save them the trouble...

I hereby recommend that EU governments stop using Microsoft products.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:What the EU can do... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 10:24 · Score: 0

its MS what should the limit be

For the sake of TWO CHARACTERS... two FUCKING characters, this text could've been made intelligible.

Its MS, what should the limit be?

See? You can even leave out the apostrophe, and still not look entirely fucking stupid.
Re:What the EU can do... by geekee · 2002-11-05 13:59 · Score: 1

I'm sure they'll do all of the above, given the socialist nature of Europe. The govt. loves to infringe on the rights of businessmen "for the good of the people".

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by Pike65 · 2002-11-05 02:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

there'd be no adverts

And you're funding this how?

--
"If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65

Different point of view by InrdZQdxdqn · 2002-11-05 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Our case is quite different from a factual point of view," (Quoted from the article)

Yes, it is.

For Europe the question is more like:

Do we want an american company to control nearly all desktops in Europe (in the world) ?

The answer in the US might be "yes, that's fine". But I hope we'll do better in Europe.

Remember Echelon?

Re:Different point of view by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:22 · Score: 0

Why don't you eurotrash just come up with a better desktop OS? Sorry, I can't comment anymore. I am laughing too hard.

MODS: mod this -999999999, uncomfortable fact.
Re:Different point of view by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:36 · Score: 1, Informative

Why don't you eurotrash just come up with a better desktop OS? Sorry, I can't comment anymore. I am laughing too hard.

Would that be SUSE Linux or Mandrake Linux you are referring to by any chance?
Re:Different point of view by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:36 · Score: 0

If your biggest concern is over which country makes the desktop then I hope your country rots in hell.
Re:Different point of view by kcbrown · 2002-11-05 09:43 · Score: 2

Do we want an american company to control nearly all desktops in Europe (in the world)?
The answer in the US might be "yes, that's fine". But I hope we'll do better in Europe.
Remember Echelon?

Yes. And what has happened to Echelon since then? Not a goddamned thing.
So don't get your hopes up.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.

This will hopefully put M$ in the right place by suman28 · 2002-11-05 02:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have seen the EU take on Honeywell before and the deal was struck down. Hopefully, M$ will be found guilty and be forced to reduce their market share at least in Europe. This with the addition of some govts promoting Linux as a cheaper alternative will eventually cut M$ down to size. Then ofcourse, there is the M$ driving their "customers" away with promoting valid licenses. With Longhorn, I can see less and less people buying/installing Windows to avoid the hassle. M$ won't go down over night, but every dog has its day, though I would hate to call M$ a dog, because atleast my dog is my very best friend.

sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 02:55 · Score: 0

deliberate attempts at inoperability with non-MS server operating systems.

Isn't this what the .net framework is for?

A lesson in Slashdot Article submission by M.C.+Hampster · 2002-11-05 02:56 · Score: 0, Insightful

1) Make sure the article is on Microsoft.
2) Include some childish comment like: concerning software bundling (or should that be bungling?) into its OS
3) ???
4) SUBMIT!

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by failrate · 2002-11-05 02:57 · Score: 1

Well, see, to provide quality topical updates every few hours, the founders just let the "constituency" that is the slashdot readership self-moderate. If someone is full of @#$%, then they will get moderated. It's a cybernetic feedback system, and trust me, it works a lot better than other feature/news sites like cnn. Plus, it has the added bonus of having lower overhead. Also, who says adverts are bad? Slashdot doesn't seem to have any pop-ups, and the adverts are actually in context, so what's the problem? Anyway, go ahead and start your dotslash blog, and I hope it goes well. More power to you.

--
Voodoo Girl is the bomb!

Re:Damnit by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I remember when Oem's were selling beOS in a dual boot configuration with Microsoft. Microsoft began using its market control to force the Oem's to drop Beos. BeOS is a dead OS now but it was very good at what it did and had potential. But in the market environment it had no chance. This isn't just Linux getting better than Windows, it is about the software that was better than Windows getting a chance. If Microsoft didn't force BeOS out of the ipaq they would have had capital to keep developing. If they would have had device manufacturers working with them instead of scared of losing the works with window logo on their packaging it would have had more hardware support. And this is just one example of the problem with a monopoly affecting innovation. There are more out there. So by all means for me it is not about Linux or Microsoft, it is about a market that allows the best product to surface.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

Of course by dirtyhank · 2002-11-05 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know what you mean with "power" but the EU could eventually ban Microsoft's products in 15 countries across Europe. This would seriously hurt M$ figures.

Of course, some EU members could disobey this ban but then they would face severe penalties. It happens all the time.

Anyway, no country seems to be very happy with M$ here in Europe these days so i'd bet there wouldn't be any complains if EU comission bans M$ products.

Re:Of course by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 03:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually 20 countries the Irish passed the referendum which allows the EU expansion to go through. More former eastern block countries are coming in within the coming years.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

excellent by tps12 · 2002-11-05 02:59 · Score: 1, Flamebait

It's great to see that someone is staying strong against Micro$oft. I can't believe how much injustice is being done by our so-called "justice" system. They spout tough-sounding sound bytes, but never follow through with any sort of action against what is basically at this point a criminal organization. It's not even surprising, though, given how much money M$ gives to politicians.

Fortunately, our allies in the EU are not so easily bought. After seeing what Nazi-driven companies like Volkswagen could do, the Europeans are suspicious--and rightly so--of any successful business. This will pay off in the end. Even as we Americans become slaves of Micro$oft, the Europeans will find freedom from their oppression and create a haven for Linux and freeware.

Perhaps in ten years, when the US is a wasteland with a handful of ultra-rich masters ruling over millions toiling in poverty, the EU will allow some of us to join them in harmonious cooperation. I fear that Europe remains the one final outpost of Western civilization, freedom, and democracy.

--

Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)

Re:excellent by sql*kitten · 2002-11-05 03:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

are suspicious--and rightly so--of any successful business

freedom from their oppression

a handful of ultra-rich masters ruling over millions toiling in poverty

harmonious cooperation

Lord, save us from teenage Marxist demagogues!
Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 07:11 · Score: 0

Hallelujah!

and the government shall rest on His shoulders...

Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by Qwerpafw · 2002-11-05 03:00 · Score: 0, Interesting

And this bodes badly for microsoft.

The European Union and the member nations that comprise it are not particularly finnicky about local companies' antitrust issues. However, for non-local companies they are quite harsh. Recall that the heavily subsidized Airbus was started by these people basically because they didn't like having to buy american planes.

The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs, or banning, imported products from companies they don't like or that have policies the EU disagrees with.

Remember the whole banana fiasco? and how europe has basically banned american GM food?

I wouldn't count on microsoft getting off easy in europe. They don't have the Bush administration there. OTOH, MS is very willing to sink ridiculous amounts of lobbying $$ to purchase legislators. The EU decisions makers are also not as knowledgable in computer technical issues as even the virtually computer-illiterate american judges.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 03:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I lived in the US for the first 28 years of my life. For the last two years have lived in Europe and your comment about the EU decisions makers not being knowledgable in the computer technical issues as the american judges is just complete bullshite.

The GM food issue isn't just a government issue it is a populace issue. If the government accepts gm food here they will have voters voting them out. The people don't want GM food at this point in time, the governments generally want the GM food business but they don't have the popular support to do it. So the ban on GM food isn't a trade issue as it is a consumer issue. Consumers won't buy food.

The banan fiasco was that, but the US has some silly trade mark games not

Check out this

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by servies · 2002-11-05 03:29 · Score: 1

Basically we want fair competition, we don't want genetically manipulated food and we don't want meat bathing in hormones. This has nothing to do with it being american but just with it being 'genetically manipulated'.
The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs, or banning, imported products from companies they don't like or that have policies the EU disagrees with. :%s/EU/USA/g
This goes both ways...
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by JanneM · 2002-11-05 03:42 · Score: 3, Informative

That is actually not true. Internal issues are likely not very publicized in the US, but EU has come down hard on a number of proposed mergers within EU the last few years, precisely for the risk of creating market monopolies.

As for the food issue, another poster here is quite correct that the push to ban GM foods and meat raised with antibiotics comes from the people, not from the member governments or EU itself. Another sticking point is that according to most member states' laws, all foods (from within EU or from without) must be declared where it was grown or raised, and american producers have resisted, fearing (perhaps rightly) that consumers will choose not to by american produce.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by prisonernumber7 · 2002-11-05 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The EU decisions makers are also not as knowledgable in computer technical issues as even the virtually computer-illiterate american judges.
What makes you think so, Qwerpafw? Is it that we Europeans are so much less educated than you americans are?

The EU "decision makers" as you call them have started this ordeal by ordering a study on the case. This for the sole purpose of having experts judge.

I, as an European Citizen[tm], sometimes find the views of some of you americans on the EU and our legislation quite pitiable, because people such as you in particular share uneducated views without hesitation:

The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs, or banning, imported products from companies they don't like or that have policies the EU disagrees with.

... as shown here. The European Union was formed to guarantee the freedom of trade.

--
&& aemula C. ab stirpe interiit
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by Jeppe+Salvesen · 2002-11-05 04:26 · Score: 3, Informative

GM food ban was to the best of my knowledge consumer-driven. Are you mad at the EU for being more democratic than the USA? There is a lot of discussion about this issue still going on, and there might be reversal later on. However, I would argue that GM foods need to be tested and monitored very carefully before they are used. They are potentially extremely beneficial, so it would be disaterous for the planet's future if they are widely adopted too soon (since that could both threaten the planet, or threaten the future of GM foods).

So - no - the EU is not essentially mean to US companies. However, it has high standards, sometimes higher than the US standards. When US companies face EU standards, they prefer to confront the standards as anticompetitive, rather than raise their own standards. That approach is much cheaper.

--
Stop the brainwash
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by mr_stark · 2002-11-05 04:28 · Score: 1

Not so, the EU will fine anyone who breaks the rules Eg:

5 German banks fined at total of 100 million Euro for price fixing.
DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen AG fined over 100 million Euro.

MS will probably get an EU wide fine of x million per day until they comply.

--
I can't think of anything witty right now
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by 10Ghz · 2002-11-05 05:59 · Score: 2

"The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs"

You mean something like steel tariffs?

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by shren · 2002-11-05 07:22 · Score: 2

The people don't want GM food at this point in time

Who is telling the people what they want? What groups are pushing against GMed food? I'm having trouble imagining spontaneous anti-GM sentiment.

--
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by mijok · 2002-11-05 07:36 · Score: 0

... as shown here. The European Union was formed to guarantee the freedom of trade. you mean the EFTA??? the origin of the EU is the "coal and steel union" (I'm too lazy to find the proper English term for that - that's a direct translation from what I learnt in school in Sweden) - basically the idea was to prevent another war by make the economies of germany and france dependent on each other (at the time coal and steel were the most important goods), other countries joined later

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 08:23 · Score: 2

Really I have trouble seeing acceptance of it.

It is really a question of trust.
I don't see any evidence damning GM food, nor do I see any evidence for the need of GM food.
But the companies who manufacture GM food created large publicity problems for themselves by having ad campaigns and policies that made people not trust them. And food is something where the level of trust from the end user is needed for the product to sell. If you can't trust your food sources you do look around for an alternative quickly.

Basically the question that needs to be answered is the GM qualities put into food, to better the food or to protect the interset of the company producing the seed. I won't trust a food unless the let it seed in the wild. The risk of monopolising the food chain is much worse than the risk of monopolising the software industry. Real or imagined threat it is worth safeguarding against now before it becomes an issue.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by Mac+Degger · 2002-11-05 08:43 · Score: 2

"I'm having trouble imagining spontaneous anti-GM sentiment."

Sometimes people do think for themselves (I'm shocked at that, too ;) ). Especially farmers who see stories like certain GM crops having been windblown into a farmers field and then having to pay for copyright infringement. It's a grass-roots thing.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by shren · 2002-11-05 08:51 · Score: 2

Especially farmers who see stories like certain GM crops having been windblown into a farmers field and then having to pay for copyright infringement.

Who publishes the stories? Are you telling me that the mainstream media is on the side of the farmers and freedom of information instead of the corporations? That must be nice.

--
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by shren · 2002-11-05 08:53 · Score: 2

But the companies who manufacture GM food created large publicity problems for themselves by having ad campaigns and policies that made people not trust them.

Who brought the shadyness in the ad campaigns and policies to light? Surely every single European didn't do his own investigation into the ads and policies. Who's spotlighting the problems? From where does the word of mouth begin?

--
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by taxman_10m · 2002-11-05 08:55 · Score: 2

Or rather farmers who can't compete with redder tomatoes. It's protectionism, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 09:27 · Score: 2

Open public debate.
There is more variety of reporting and coverage here. Currently the debate was started again a few months ago by the government trying to restart the debate and try to advance the GM industry in the country. The farmers over here are against it because the biggest profit making market for farmers is organic food. So farmers can't risk cross pollination, plus the seed control of GM companies has them lose control of their product. So the farmers objected to the government's GM trials. That was enough to highlight and place it in public debate.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by TheOldFart · 2002-11-05 10:26 · Score: 1

This has to do with the utter ignorance of Americans with relation no anything outside our borders. This is why angry Arabs blow themselves into our buildings. Ignorance. There is even a book out titled "The Dummy Guide to Muslim". The European culture will side to quality before quantity. The American culture is the other way around. Just look at the stuff available at WallMart, the absurdly large SUVs, the boat loads and boat loads of crap coming from China, etc. Computers, like everything else in this country is a discardable commodity. That's simply not how things are done in Europe. The results of this ruling will have a quite different outcome (cultural and otherwise) within the European community.
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 14:14 · Score: 0

the strongest sentiment is in britain which had the BSE (kreuzfelt jacobs / mad cow disease) scares. Other countries also have had their share of healthscares.

The anti GM sentiment is largely hysterical but certainly not endorsed for example by large companies that have something to loose by allowing GM in. Some of the largest food multinationals are based in EUR (unilever, nestle).
Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies by Mac+Degger · 2002-11-05 14:30 · Score: 2

Actually, this made to CNN...at least, the CNN we get in the Netherlands (I add that because there are significant differences in programming between countries).

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?

Notes on the EU from the book of all wisdom: by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Horst: [threatingly] We Germans aren't all smiles und sunshine.
Burns: [recoils in mock horror]
Oooh, the Germans are mad at me. I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans!
[hiding behind Smithers] Uh oh, the Germans are going to get me!
Horst: Stop it!
Man 2: Stop, sir.
Burns: Don't let the Germans come after me.
Oh no, the Germans are coming after me.
Man 2: Please stop the `pretending you are scared' game, please.
Horst: Stop it! Stop it!
Burns: [brief pause, then resumes]
No! They're so big and strong!
Man 2: Stop it.
Horst: Stop it, Mr. Burns.
Man 2: Please stop pretending you are scared of us, please, now.
Burns: Oh, protect me from the Germans! The Germans...
Horst: Burns, STOP IT!

SNPP, 8F09

Nope. Not there either. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:05 · Score: 0

You forgot about the 55% estate tax.

Maybe by 2010... by Kjella · 2002-11-05 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed, and I'm sure MS will manage to get loopholes in any ruling big enough to ram a small country through, at least on the first try.

If anything, MS will try to break compatibility somehow using their "Trusted Computing" newspeak, before the Linux marked share gets too big to handle. While Linux might not be the big home desktop hit, it is making inroads in the corporate and educational community.

Problem is, that these lawsuits are kinda like submarine patent suits.

1. They take way too long before they are filed (by desire by the submariners, by beaurocracy by EU/US)
2. By the time they actually do everybody is using it (gif patent or IE)
3. Any ruling won't do anything about that, and when they try to resolve it the technology has evolved beyond that point to new problems (.gif patent by .png, but lots of other submarines. IE now removable, but WMP/Messenger/whatever is not)

Don't expect laws to help Linux. If anything, pray that the pirates won't find any ways to pirate secure Windows/Office/whatever. Then we'll see how many who will truly cough up $$$ for those products.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Maybe by 2010... by pubjames · 2002-11-05 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed

2001 Simultaneously introduce new currency across 11 countries

2004 Expand union to include another 10 countries

Yep, they sure look like slow movers to me.
Re:Maybe by 2010... by cscx · 2002-11-05 04:56 · Score: 2

but WMP/Messenger/whatever is not

Uh, yeah, it is. I uninstalled Messenger from my machine. RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

That's it. Gone. And I don't want any complaining from the Linux fanboys -- you should be used to the command line.
Re:Maybe by 2010... by mijok · 2002-11-05 07:29 · Score: 0

If you live in an EU country (like I do) you might remember how long the preparation for the currency switch was... But then again some of the preventions of mergers were done within months, so maybe we'll see something nice coming out of this fairly quickly :)

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:Maybe by 2010... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-11-05 07:36 · Score: 2

Out of idle curiosity, where is that documented?

Yeah, Linux guys are used to the command line, but stuff *DOES* tend to be documented (even if done poorly) in HOWTOs or man pages.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Maybe by 2010... by cscx · 2002-11-05 09:32 · Score: 2

Aqui, amigo ;)
Re:Maybe by 2010... by El+Cabri · 2002-11-05 09:40 · Score: 2

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed, and I'm sure MS will manage to get loopholes in any ruling big enough to ram a small country through, at least on the first try.
Actually the EU antitrust procedures are much, much faster than in the US. They are even too fast according to the European Court of Justice, which has recently struck down a couple of its rulings over hasty procedures (the companies where not even informed of why their deals were rejected). And competition commissioner Mario Monti (nicknamed Super Mario after he imposed a $150M fine on Nintendo) has personnaly more power on the EU trade zone than the US DoJ has over the US.
Re:Maybe by 2010... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-11-05 10:01 · Score: 2

And why would a Win2K user go there?

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by banana+fiend · 2002-11-05 03:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

A Utopia!! I'm breathless with excitement - it'd be like that film "the beach", except we'd really succeed this time!!!!!

Count me in !!! We could make a beowulf cluster of them!!!!!!

--
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.

It's not about you... by danro · 2002-11-05 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you

And what those 60 000 people do, or more to the point, what their executives do effects millions of people all over the world in a negative way. No wonder people are "anti-microsoft".
I have no beef with MS emplyees, but the pracices of MS the company is a daily annoyance to me and gets _me_ home later to _my_ family.

Even if you work at MS you must be blind not to see why a lot of computer professionals have no trouble finding reasons to dislike MS products.

...and of course there is the howling mass of teenage slashroids. They annoy me too sometimes.

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."

Re:It's not about you... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 07:08 · Score: 0

> Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand
> employees at Microsoft. All of us have families
> and mortgages to pay just like you.

Nobody forced you to work for a criminal company.
Re:It's not about you... by valisk · 2002-11-05 08:08 · Score: 1

And on average those 60,000 employees earn $250,000 per annum, but hold on a moment, aren't most of those employees infact permatemps who work for agencies at pitiable rates of pay, always hoping for but never getting full time employment? Dont over 75% of Microsofts workforce not actualy work for Microsoft at all?
I think we should be told.
Ps. If you are talented enough you will get a job elsewhere

--

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Re:It's not about you... by lawman5 · 2002-11-05 10:16 · Score: 1

Even if you work at MS you must be blind not to see why a lot of computer professionals have no trouble finding reasons to dislike MS products.
I do and yes - I can see many reasons. My concern is with the Slashdot community in general (expecially some of the folks who choose what gets 'published').
Microsoft invests hundreds of millions in research and development for the computer industry every year. Why aren't any of these efforts and initiatives posted to SlashDot?
And what those 60 000 people do, or more to the point, what their executives do effects millions of people all over the world in a negative way This is exactly the kind of comment I find at slashdot that seems so one-sided. Do you really think the executives and employees at Microsoft spend their days and nights trying to figure out how to effect people in a negative way?
I'm not even going to begin to try and defend Microsoft in this forumn. I do think, however, given the scope of Microsoft's influence in our industry (negative and positive), Slashdot should make more of an effort to exercise more impartial judgement on the way they post content.
IMHO, I think it's also time for many of the slashdotters out there to wake up to the fact that Microsoft is just not going away anytime soon.
Sure - honest evaluation and criticism is what makes SlashDot great, but blindly hating anything to do with Microsoft today is a little like blindly hating anything to do with IBM in the 60's and 70's
This isn't intended as flame bait and thanks for your earlier response.

Cheaper way by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:09 · Score: 0

Bill buy french futuroscope to please french govt. Mmm.

No. He'll just send Ballmer over in a Vermach(sp?) private uniform. The French will offer MS HUGE subsidies.

Re:Cheaper way by dmp123 · 2002-11-05 03:43 · Score: 1

Wehrmacht, but near enough for me to guess ;) German WWII army, for the non-german speakers

They can't stop MS.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

..besides, business is not where to try to hit them.

You see, the world's offices run on Office. Deny them that, and they get cranky. They start making campaign contributions, and suddenly, laws everywhere become the plaything of Microsoft.

Even if it'd cost more to buy some politicians than to switch to Open Office or something else, businesses won't stand for it. Why? Because - business despises the idea of governments telling them what they can and can't do. Businesses like *telling* governments what they can and can't do.

What would be great is if the EU frees European OEMs from the threats of Microsoft. Now, that would cause slight pain.

You see, consumers dislike the idea of paying for things they believe they do not need. How many of you here know people who still run Win 98? I can't count the people I know who are still running it. Each one of those is money that's not being sent to One Microsoft Way.

Will people, given the choice, stop buying upgrades with each computer? Yes, they will. Installing an operating system is *NOT* rocket science, and almost everyone has a kid down the street who will do it for $10.

$10, versus the Microsoft Tax. Sounds like a sweet deal, eh?

Re:They can't stop MS.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:23 · Score: 0, Informative

You see, the world's offices run on Office. Deny them that, and they get cranky.
only a blathering idiot would say that.. the world runs on wordperfect. it's more adept at languages other than english.. as they tried to make it more global instead of the typical microsoft borg think.

The entire world can switch to Open Office and never even notice except for a tiny tiny TINY few that actually use that stupid scripting built into MS office. and then it's only going to annoy the morons that have too much time on their hands making a tool that is not designed for a certian job work (word and excel are NOT data collection apps.. and idiots use them that way with OLE)

If microsoft word was removed from every PC in your office and replaced with OO.o I guarentee that productivity will remain at it's current levels and nobody will really care..

I know, I've done it here. and the very few that bitched shut up after 2 days.
Re:They can't stop MS.. by mpe · 2002-11-05 05:53 · Score: 2

The entire world can switch to Open Office and never even notice except for a tiny tiny TINY few that actually use that stupid scripting built into MS office.

But think of those poor macro virus writers :)

and then it's only going to annoy the morons that have too much time on their hands making a tool that is not designed for a certian job work (word and excel are NOT data collection apps.. and idiots use them that way with OLE)

Nor is Access a multi-user database for storing vital data. Idiots try and do that too.

If microsoft word was removed from every PC in your office and replaced with OO.o I guarentee that productivity will remain at it's current levels and nobody will really care..

Possibly productivity would be better. Since there are quite a few things which are easier to do in Star/Open Office than in Word.
Re:They can't stop MS.. by mormop · 2002-11-05 10:36 · Score: 1

I sell Linux servers and workstations and office IS the problem. The one company I have that switched to mainly Linux run OO.org over MySQL, use K-mail with GPG, and are happy as pigs in shit.

Why? Simple, In the year+ that the MD has been running Linux on his desktop he hasn't lost any time due to viruses. With Win98 he had SirCAM, KAK and Klez.h despite subscription updated Norton Anti Virus and lost 5 figure sums in terms of lost productivity.

In the 4 months since Linux was installed across all the office machines, not one has crashed to the point of needing a reboot. There have been one or two app freezes that were easily remedied with XKill but no reboots.

The amount they saved on software licences has enabled them to pay us to set the whole thing up with upgraded PCs and also leaves enough cash for us to kit their second office in Northern England out as well.

The guy is happy, I mean really happy but even with him backing us up and his extensive business contacts getting others to drop Windows and MS Office is soooooooooo bloody difficult you wouldn't believe it.

Office is like the worst kind of crack you'll find anywhere. Not only does it turn users into addicts but it makes them blind as well.

Anyway, to summarise. Small Office 1 server running Mandrake 8.2, 2 desktops with Mandrake 8.2, one desktop running Mandrake 9, one running Win98 (can't give up their accounts package) and a firewall / router running Linux.

If only there were more open minded business people in this country......

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

TRANSATLANTIC CONSISTENCY by magwm · 2002-11-05 03:13 · Score: 1

did you read that? TRANSATLANTIC CONSISTENCY -of laws, of course... oh my dear! yes of COURSE europe should understand that when something goes wrong in the US, it should also go that way in europe.. man! i can't believe it.
now, if europe decides MS is wrong, should then the US reconsider their judgements because of transatlantic consistency?????

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:14 · Score: 0

That's the thing -- look at Slashdot itself and it doesn't NEED much funding. I know a few people who could host the site and provide bandwidth; meanwhile, with user-submitted articles and voting on them, there wouldn't need to be any paid staff. Myself and a few others (I'm a computer journo) would keep checks on things a few mins each day, and voila.

This could be a real possibility: Slashdot, but with the problems corrected (adverts, poor language, dupes, infinite mod points for eds, user-voting etc.).

If anyone's reading this thread and is interested, please do post -- I'd like to gauge the amount of interest before starting it off!

EU is different from US courts by Alain+Williams · 2002-11-05 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative

M$ is not an corporation from an EU country, there is no direct economic advantage to the EU of supporting M$'s illegal activities.
The powerful EU officials are not directly elected by the populace; so they are not quite so easy to buy.

A change of administration in one EU country is not so far reaching as the change in a single country (ie the US).
The EU has deomstrated an interest in Open Source:
EU Studies Linux Migration

Individual countries have also expressed strong interest in Open Source.

Re:EU is different from US courts by xutopia · 2002-11-05 03:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

The big reason why the US law decided to be so nice with MS is because Microsoft is on of Americas leading company outside of the US.

If it were a European company hurting the US and the world the US legal jabbers would be the first one to cry for justice.
Re:EU is different from US courts by mpe · 2002-11-05 05:34 · Score: 2

M$ is not an corporation from an EU country, there is no direct economic advantage to the EU of supporting M$'s illegal activities.

Probably quite an economic advantage to be rid of Microsoft. Since their net economic contribution is to suck money across the Atlantic.

The powerful EU officials are not directly elected by the populace; so they are not quite so easy to buy.

There are far more political parties in EU member states than in the US.

A change of administration in one EU country is not so far reaching as the change in a single country (ie the US).

There arn't trans-Europe political parties. Even if these were to come into existance there would probably be more than two of them. It's a lot easier to buy off political parties when you only need to do it with two.
When it comes to political parties and voting systems the US and the EU are very different.
Re:EU is different from US courts by CgiJobs · 2002-11-05 06:45 · Score: 1

The powerful EU officials are not directly elected by the populace
You consider this a virtue?
I much prefer being governed by leaders directly elected by the people than by bureaucrats in Brussels.

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:18 · Score: 0

But that's the thing -- the eds DON'T allow readers to moderate articles. As a result, we have a lot of dupes.

Regarding adverts: yes, I don't care about them (I browse in Links anyway), but for a site where no professional writing staff are employed, it's sad that they feel the need to push MS ads in our face to get some cash.

Like I said in the other response, there are people around who would easily contribute the bandwidth to a community cause.

Not sure what OSDN would make of the name Dotslash though; I'd like a similar name to pull readers across, and the whole point is not another brand new blog but a better version of Slashdot.

Any views?

What they should do... by danro · 2002-11-05 03:20 · Score: 3, Informative

...is promote OSS in the EU administration and in the member states administration.
It would have the tripple advantage of:

Lower costs. (In the emedium to long run, say 2 years to break even.)
Inject some much needed energy in the IT sector.
Not take the risk of having important EU/state data held "hostage" in proprietary formats. And thus decrease the EU's dependance on a single private and unaccountable foreign entity. (Yes Bill, I am looking at you!)

...oh, yeah, and as a side effect Microsoft would loose significant marketshare in a pretty large market.
But I don't think punishment should be the top priority, I would rather see them aim for less vulnerability to future abuses of the MS monopoly.

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."

Re:What they should do... by suicidal · 2002-11-05 03:58 · Score: 1

and what exactly is the marketshare going to do when Microsoft "looses" it? Are we going to see people screaming in horror as they frantically scramble away from the rampant marketshare running the streets like a rabid beast?

Hmm.... maybe you meant lose, but I'm more entertained by the visions of mayhem running through my head.
Re:What they should do... by Cassius105 · 2002-11-05 04:02 · Score: 1

This is what they already are doing dunno if you saw the articles but laterly the European commision commisioned an investigation on open source software and also alot of European countrys have started using linux alot in there government systems
Re:What they should do... by danro · 2002-11-06 01:32 · Score: 1

Sorry, this is not my mother tongue...
But, yes, the unintended apocalyptic visions are entertaining.

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."

Most likely EU response by ites · 2002-11-05 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Will be a punative fine set high enough to hurt Microsoft.
The US response will be very significant. If the US government complains and retaliates, its intentions WRT Microsoft will be clear.
If OTOH the US government keeps quiet, as it did with the Honeywell case, MS is in for a beating in Europe.
It cannot afford to stop trading in Europe. It cannot escape a fine, since it has a financial presence in Europe.
The EU may choose to combine this with other moves, such as a well-timed announcement that Windows will be phased out in favor of Linux, Sun, and IBM products in the EU itself.
Microsoft only really has one card to play, and that is bribery and corruption.

--
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.

Re:Most likely EU response by sphealey · 2002-11-05 04:51 · Score: 2

The US response will be very significant. If the US government complains and retaliates, its intentions WRT Microsoft will be clear.
If OTOH the US government keeps quiet, as it did with the Honeywell case, MS is in for a beating in Europe.
It cannot afford to stop trading in Europe. It cannot escape a fine, since it has a financial presence in Europe.

OK, so the EU imposes a fine. A nice big one, say 10,000,000,000 euro.
Microsoft (1) pays the fine out of its current cash reserve of ~40,000,000,000 USD (2) the following January 1st, notifies all their customers in the United States, Asia, and South America that in order to pay the "unjust fine levied by European bureaucrats", they will have to raise the price of Office 15%.
Result: amount of fine earned back in two years, huge resentment created by Microsoft against EU.
Net benefit to EU?
sPh
Re:Most likely EU response by Corporate+Troll · 2002-11-05 06:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

notifies all their customers in the United States, Asia, and South America that in order to pay the "unjust fine levied by European bureaucrats", they will have to raise the price of Office 15%.
Result:
a) South America switches completely to Open Source as they have already threathened so often. No more sales in South America .
b) Asia could do the same, or heck, with China developping their own OS at least China -a big market after all- could switch to something else entirely. The rest of Asia might just say? "Copyright"? We dunno what that means... and pirate happily. Result: much less sales in Asia.
c) North America: whines and bitches, and with the current economical slup they are in many companies that freeze the IT budget entirely and will continue to work with currently existing installations. Heck, many still are using Office 97 on NT4 which is perfectly viable. Net result: much less sales in North America.
Now who do you think Microsoft will hurt when they would pull a stunt like that?
Re:Most likely EU response by sphealey · 2002-11-05 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Result:
a) South America switches completely to Open Source as they have already threathened so often. No more sales in South America .

Believe me, I wish I could agree with you. But as October_30th describes below, it doesn't seem to be happening that way. A fair number of people are somewhat upset about Microsoft's licensing policies and costs. Hundreds of millions are physically, legally, and/or psychologically locked into Microsoft products, particuarly Office. Think about law offices in North America - they are still locked into WordPerfect, 10 years after that product lost the fight. Now multiply that by several 100,000,000s.
And realistically, does the typical purchaser care if he pays $213 or $232 for that bundled copy of Office on his shiny new Dude PC? Does he even know?
I am afraid that while there may be some smoke around the idea of replacing Microsoft on the desktop, it isn't happening yet.
sPh
Re:Most likely EU response by Corporate+Troll · 2002-11-05 08:03 · Score: 1

While I agree that John Sixpack won't get the difference, there is something like the Corporate world. In my opinion, Linux on the desktop is not yet ther (sorry, linux lovers... I'm a BSD/Mac man anyway), but that doesn't change the fact that a heavy migration to Linux could lead to a better "Linux on the Desktop".
Anways, back to John Sixpack. He buy a computer, OEM or not, and gets Windows XP Home and Microsoft Works bundeled. However he does not know what he buys! I recently had someone asking me advice for a new laptop which she would use at home and on the network of the University. I told her to go for XP Pro instead of the Home edition. Since she is going to do serious stuff on that machine I advised Office instead of the bundeled Works. Well, when she saw the increased pricetag of 400Euro (I think, could be less), she thought I was insane, and of course she didn't do it. I also tried to explain to her that the 0Euro pricetag for XP Home and Works were not real 0Euro, but that it was included in the price of the laptp. Of course, she didn't get a word I told her (or didn't care)
Now she complains she can't log on to the University domain and use the shared printers. In summary, she thinks that her computer is a big pain. (Not even mentioning she had a virus within 3 months after purchase...but that's a ID-10T problem)
That is a home user...the extra 20Euro won't actually hurt them too much, but now to corporations. Some of them have 10000 seats, and that price increase you talk about is in the order of 200000Euro. Now, in corporate standards it is not *that* much, but considering the fact that IT budgets are really tight since the dot-com bubble, decisionmaker could well decide to stick with what they have. Slowly migrating to free alternatives. Don't think Linux on the desktop will go from one day to the other. It is like any other migration, slowly, over time and keeping "what works". At my current client most workstations are still NT4, Lotus Notes 4 (Yes, not kidding you), and Office 2000 (and that just recently). The first Windows 2000 computers are starting to appear, mainly in development where I work because we needed kick-butt machines and the hardware wasn't supported under NT4.
I have yet to see any office where Windows XP is used. Heck I didn't even see Office XP at any of my clients. How long have both been out? A long time.
The Home market to Microsoft is just the cherry on top, not really the most important revenue stream.
Re:Most likely EU response by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 10:17 · Score: 0

c) North America: whines and bitches, and with the current economical slup they are in many companies that freeze the IT budget entirely and will continue to work with currently existing installations. Heck, many still are using Office 97 on NT4 which is perfectly viable. Net result: much less sales in North America

No no! If you don't buy MS products, umm... bailing out those silly Europeans (yeah, that'll work) then the terrorists have already won!
Re:Most likely EU response by BollocksToThis · 2002-11-05 10:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Microsoft only really has one card to play, and that is bribery and corruption.

Two! Our TWO cards are bribery and corruption. And deceit. Our THREE cards are bribery, corruption, and deceit. And FUD. Among our cards to play are bribery, corruption, deceit, and FUD. And huge cash reserves... Oh, I'll come in again.

[Open invitation for pedant post to correct me]

--
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.

Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M by sphealey · 2002-11-05 03:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

If one looks at the entire history of Airbus, or the more recent histories of the Eurofigher and the A400M projects, it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that those who direct the EU do not want their agglomeration to be dependent on the United States in any way for critical technology. And that that they are willing to pay (or have their taxpayers pay) a substantial price to avoid that dependence.

The A400M is particularly instructive: the required capabilities are available today, off-the-shelf, at lower cost, in the form of the C-17 and C-130J. But the EU continues to push the A400 project despite it being 10 years late and at least 8 years from availability. And I suspect they will get their plane, in the end.

So, does the EU plan the same process with Microsoft? Remember that those who direct the EU behind the scenes don't have the same concerns about "cost" as managers of private companies, because they impose "directives" that governments and private companies must obey. Are the recent announcements by SuSE a testing of the waters for the imposition of a Linux desktop on EU organizations?

sPh

Re:Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M by jmcnamera · 2002-11-05 04:57 · Score: 1

The reason Europe supports Airbus and Eurofighter is also their wanting to create more domestic employment and help large labor unions and buy votes. The same crass political considerations that every country, incl the US, has. Take a look at their farm policy. It makes even less economic sense but it buys lots of rural support

--
this is not a sig
Re:Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M by mpe · 2002-11-05 06:04 · Score: 2

If one looks at the entire history of Airbus, or the more recent histories of the Eurofigher and the A400M projects, it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that those who direct the EU do not want their agglomeration to be dependent on the United States in any way for critical technology.

Doubt the US would want to make itself dependent upon the EU either.

And that that they are willing to pay (or have their taxpayers pay) a substantial price to avoid that dependence.

Hardly unique to the EU. IIRC the US Congress just decided that it would be a good idea to lease some brand new aircraft from Boeing to the USAF. Even though the USAF dosn't actually need them and it's a "buyers market" for second hand wide bodied jets right now.

The A400M is particularly instructive: the required capabilities are available today, off-the-shelf, at lower cost, in the form of the C-17 and C-130J.

Or for that matter from the Ukraine. It's more a case of not being dependent on those outside of the EU than anything else.

Stick it to them by attobyte · 2002-11-05 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the EU stick it to MS I might have to move.

--
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

Mike

Re:Stick it to them by micro_SUXX · 2002-11-05 07:19 · Score: 1

If the EU sticks it to MS and there is widespread Linux adoption I WILL move.
Re:Stick it to them by YinYang69 · 2002-11-05 13:25 · Score: 1

If the EU sticks it to M$ and none of the natural citizens of the continent mind my American sickness, I _will_ move. ;)

Could care less about MS. by josh+crawley · 2002-11-05 03:28 · Score: 1

Feh. I really hate arguments like this article. MS deserves a fine, but really.. let them go on with what they do now. Why? Many users legitly hate Windows and "tech support" with them. That alone is making users try Linux. Some of those users like it at first, others complain about lack of apps.

We already have tons of killer apps for Linux. Doesnt seem enough to convert users over to Linux. We have Evolution for Mail, Mozilla/Phoenix for web surfing, OpenOffice for an office suite, MySQL along with guis to use with it, Gnome AND Kde as desktop environments, an Xserver that allows fine grained "remote desktop" capibility, tons of network GUI clients, can read any FS... Still what's the "BIG" switch for users to Linux? And no, usability is pretty good now. With KDE, it's better than windows.

Re:Could care less about MS. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:04 · Score: 0

It's called money and marketing dollars. Something the Open Source world seems to lack because everything is free. Linux still is making 0 ground on the desktop world, and that's where it needs to be to win this war.
Re:Could care less about MS. by October_30th · 2002-11-05 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already have tons of killer apps for Linux
There are killer apps and then there are Killer Apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop. No suitable replacement exists for these two. OpenOffice will not do since it does not import/export with 100% success and the fonts (at least in Linux) look like shit. I don't see either how Gimp could replace Photoshop (color calibration, for instance) in professional work environment in years.
For an average user there cannot be "better than Windows" because that's what he/she can use already. The path of least resistance means that something must really upset these people before they even try changing the OS. And most of those who do try a different OS/Office package would quickly return when they realise that they'd have to learn a new GUI or - god forbid - think about "mounting a floppy" before accessing it (or do the recent distributions have an automatic mount that works as in Windows?).

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:Could care less about MS. by mijok · 2002-11-05 07:23 · Score: 0

There are killer apps and then there are Killer Apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop. Maybe we couldn't get the "killer MS apps" but if Linux' market share in the EU all of a sudden increases enormously don't you think Adobe (and others) would be porting their apps to Linux damn quickly!

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:Could care less about MS. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 08:40 · Score: 0

Compare this Windows vs. Linux software:

commercial:
Adobe Photoshop vs.Photopaint (free!)
MS-SQL vs.Oracle / SAP free edition
MS Office vs Hancom Office / StarOffice
3D studio Max vs Maya / Houdini

see, it is not really that bad on the Linux side :)
Re:Could care less about MS. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 08:57 · Score: 0

>>god forbid - think about "mounting a floppy" >>before accessing it (or do the recent >>distributions have an automatic mount that works >>as in Windows?).

Automtic mount..
Sure its a option (supermount) but do you really want a floppy seeking program all the time it just eats preformance and is anoying..
Re:Could care less about MS. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 13:05 · Score: 0

None of those comparisons come even close to parity. You've pretty much proven that Linux is an incapable replacement for Windows. In every case the commercial offering is dozens, maybe hundreds of times better than the free one.

And if you don't see that, I suggest that you actually get a real world job using one of them then try to switch to the free. Watch how fast your productivity craters.

Microsoft split in Europe by ehiris · 2002-11-05 03:36 · Score: 2

Could that mean comply or take your products away from this market?

European countries have always been very tough on monopolies so a split is not out of the question.

actually.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:36 · Score: 0

> Remember the whole banana fiasco? and how europe has basically banned american GM food?

The UK government set regulations that GM food must be labelled as such, so that people can make an informed choice as to whether to buy it. The US corps didn't like this, and pulled most GM products from the shelves. The people have the right to choose. If it were left to the corporations there would be no informative labelling of food at all.

I really don't understand the resistance Americans have to providing correct, understandable labelling on the food that they eat everyday.

Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by... by caluml · 2002-11-05 03:37 · Score: 1

Thought - let's supposed that the EU fines MS $10bn. MS retaliates against it by withdrawing from Europe, and stopping people in Europe from buying MS, and downloading patches etc.

Sounds great to us Penguinistas, but the impact on businesses that have (through their own fault) got stuck in the Microsoft way would be immense.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

EU Court may not approve of Commision by LeftOfCentre · 2002-11-05 03:43 · Score: 3, Informative

If commisioner Monti and his staff decide on sanctions against Microsoft, Microsoft will surely appeal to the European Court of Justice. Such a case could drag on for years, and furthermore the court has a recent history of overturning decisions made by the European Commision.

Microsoft payoffs by chobee · 2002-11-05 03:46 · Score: 1

I'd like to see a breakdown somewhere on Microsoft's lobbying efforts abroad vs. the amount of effort$ they put in swaying political opinion here.

Re:Microsoft payoffs by bmajik · 2002-11-05 07:37 · Score: 2

microsoft's political lobbying here was essentially non-existant until various legal entities started persuing them.

suddenly when a bunch of fame-seeking money hoarding politicians are asking for a peice of your pie, it looks worthwhile to give them some crumbs to keep them from taking a whole slice.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopoly by mormop · 2002-11-05 03:51 · Score: 1

Picture the scene,

GWB - We're introducing tariffs on all european products imported into the states!

EU - No your not, we'll do the same to you

"click" (sound of button being pressed to revoke the certificates of every bit of Fritz Chip managed M$ office software in Europe thus effectively switching European business into screwed mode)

EU....... Oh alright then.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 03:54 · Score: 0

Fine MS pull all their products out of the EU, no-one in europe can legally buy or own any microsoft products.

What happens then is Europe begins a mass conversion to Linux and other Open Source OS's (although Linux seems to be the only logical choice). Linux get's WAY more support than it does today and goes on to become a powerful OS.

People in the US see how much better Europes Linux systems work and start migrating their own systems. MS start to lose money at a rate of knots, MS in big finiacial trouble.

Therefore in the end MS will shoot themselves in the foot if they pull their products out of Europe.

here's the deal... by zogger · 2002-11-05 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

...here's the deal. Ok, swell, 60,000 employees. Ya'all produce products, great! No probs! except..... there are 280 MILLION people just in the united States. For better or worse, "the internet" is an integral part of our ECONOMY and NATIONAL SECURITY. Using fraud, deceit, extortion, theft, etc, microsoft has become a dominant player in desktop pc's and is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the servers out there. the stuff is INSECURE and buggy and insists on closed propietary "solutions" that make other peoples efforts (people with families and mortgages and whatnot) NOT WORK, work badly or not at all. They expose EVERYONE to ridiculously easy to use security exploits because of their pervasivness that is extant. They-the company-has a verifiable track record of IGNORING security problems until it's been rubbed in their face for extended periods of time, for example, I'll refresh you to the BO debacle, where microsoft just slap refused to acknowledge that gaping holes in their system, denied it existed, in essence, lied through their teeth, hiding behind their weight and arrogance. They put all 280 million people in the US at risk over this, and who knows what eles is out there. this nations business NEEDS the net now, there ain't no going back. it's not a luxury it's a NECESSITY. They did this so they could make more profit. They have 40 billion in the bank, like I have written before, is there any rational explanation they couldn't have instead used 1/2 (pick a big fraction or number here) of this money to actually CODE BETTER? How many programmers and engineers could they have hired for 20 billion, and given them a directive to make SURE that their products worked as advertised and were secure? I don't have an exact number, but it looks like thousands more-but they voluntarily CHOSE to accumulate more profits INSTEAD of making their products secure and functional. This is called short sighted GREED. The security of the nation's internet infrastructure should not have become hostage to this GREED, and the needs and security of the other 279,940,000 people are MORE IMPORTANT than the 60,000 microsoft employees money.

Sorry, that's the way it is. The internet is for EVERYONE, not for just MICROSOFT. They don't OWN it much as they would like to and have actively sought to. Their efforts are severly mucking up the ability of non microsoft ANYTHING to do anything, and if palladium gets mandated directly into hardware... huh?

You drive to work? You want the road you are on to only be allowed to owners of belchfire cars, and all the gas stations to only have gas that works only in belchfire cars? Oh what's that, you don't want to run a belchfire because you notice that every belchfire needs it's own full time mechanic to keep it running and not blowing up, you can't lock the doors so every time you stop and park and go into a store you come out and your stuff is stolen, the car stops working every 2 years requiring a new engine, it then takes a "new" kind of gas, and their gas comes chunky style with crud and whatnot floating in it every single new version of gas?

Too bad, see, belchfire is "the standard" now, even if you want to buy another brand of car-which you still can- soon you'll need a "passport" to use the road, you'll need to filter your gas, and well, the drivetrain is still gonna be a palladiumBelchfire drivetrain and you'll be required to only drive on belchfire tollroads and only stop at belchfire stores. Oh ya, the want to know every place you go to, this info gets sent automatically back to belchfire headquarters. Every_place_you_go. Oh, you added a non belchfire fender to replace the one that got banged up? Too bad, your car won't start now. On and on. You want that kind of "choice"?

Sure, you still got a choice, go get your non belchfire car, good luck running it soon after the new tollroads for belchfire-only are in place and all you can get is belchfire gas. We aren't 100% of the way there yet, but we are over 90% of the way there.. No belchfire car running belchfire gas, soon you'll be hitchhiking to work, not driving, or I guess you can just buy a belchfire, right? I mean it's "fair" and you got that choice.... ....the rest of us think that sucks, if you ain't getting it by now you just ain't never gonna get it.

I'm not an IT guy just a "car driver". I actually don't like belchfires, they have never worked all that well for me when I tried them out. yes I've owned and driven belchfires. Hmm, they actually don't work that well. In fact I've tried several belchfires, the "new and improved" are pretty much old belchfires with new body styles, the door locks don't work, I can't use anything but belchfire gas in them, and dang if every third tank of gas I put in it seemed to bust another part. That sorta suxs. I just find this sorta weird and annoying. So far I can struggle by with non belchfire, but I'm not looking forward to the new toll roads, and dang I'm getting tired of dodging all the broken down belchfires spread out on the road, and gee whizz, half the traffic is tow trucks towing in belchfires, all those broken belchfires are hurting the economy, which is hurting me in general, the real work delivery trucks can't hardly get through anymore, and I got to keep looking further and further for non belchfire gas.

Enough's enough, become part of the solution, stop being part of the problem. This belchfire leopard ain't changing it's spots, slap new paint on it, it's still a belchfire. They been asked nicey nice for years now, to PLEASE just change a few things abvout how they go about this business, they refused and even got nastier, they ain't changing except for MORE belchfire. Give it up, accept reality, belchfires useability is broken and is hindering everyone else. Your profits aren't worth the grief everyone is going through. It's just plain rank nasty wrong.

Re:here's the deal... by Lussarn · 2002-11-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Don't talk like this, you may end up missing.
Re:here's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 08:14 · Score: 0

100% agree !
Re:here's the deal... by lawman5 · 2002-11-05 10:29 · Score: 1

Resistance is futile - you will all be assimilated.
Re:here's the deal... by zogger · 2002-11-05 11:24 · Score: 1

--hahahaha! at least ya took it good!

"belchfires-where d'ya wanna go today?"
Re:here's the deal... by geekee · 2002-11-05 13:44 · Score: 1

"Using fraud, deceit, extortion, theft, etc, microsoft has become a dominant player in desktop pc's and is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the servers out there"

MS never promises anything about their software in their contracts (read the EULA). Also, they never put a gun to anyone's head and told them they must buy MS products. I'm sick of this nonsense. I see it all the time here. If you don't like their stuff, don't buy it. Quit trying to use the govt. to infringe on their civil liberties. MS has no obligation to the internet, citizens around the world, or any other corporate entity beyond whay they promise in their contracts. Your analogy is painfully flawed, BTW. MS doesn't have any exclusive contract to run the internet. If you don't like their stuff, go get your software somewhere else. If some particular server you contact runs MS, complain to the people running the server. They made a free choise to use MS. Get them to change. Quit whining to the govt., however. It's none of their business.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by mormop · 2002-11-05 04:15 · Score: 1

Be positive, what a great opportunity for us Linuxers to make a few quid as self employed consultant / trainers.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by caluml · 2002-11-05 04:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, sounds great, but so many companies wouldn't be able to move in time, or their data would be inaccessible, or there wouldn't be enough decent Linux consultants, that many many companies would fold, and many more people would be out of work.

This would then stop people spending which would hit the retail sector, which would all have a knock-on effect.

Companies need to work it out for themselves, have time to plan migration strategies, and do it themselves - a one day on, one day off effect would affect the EU very badly.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

You troll, I byte by CaptainZapp · 2002-11-05 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

No, the EU (or better, their competition commision) is mean to anybody who violates the law. Ask Volkswagen, Tetra Pack or Roche, which are all European companies (they are nummerous more).

Recall that the heavily subsidized Airbus was started by these people basically because they didn't like having to buy american planes.

Ah, here we go again. The Airbus consortium is a private company which received funding capital as a credit. Airbus is in no way subsidized nowadays as opposed to (e.g.) Boieng which relies heavily on defense contracts, which can be construed a subsidy in itself.

The reason why Airbus is vastly successful is that they sell better planes which are cheaper to maintain. At least that's the take of a lot of airlines, including major ones in the US.

and how europe has basically banned american GM food?

The issue is (same as with growth hormones, which are banned here) that European consumers just don't want to buy this crap. Don't you think it's a little bit odd that Novartis is heavily opposed towards GM crop in Europe and tell an entire different story in the US? In a nutshell: It's not an evil conspiracy towards the good people of the US (Novartis and Aventis are European companies after all) it's just that consumers - with the ultimate buying power - don't want this shit here; end of story.

I wouldn't count on microsoft getting off easy in europe.

If they violated the law, which is subject of an ongoing investigation, you can bank on it that they won't get off easy.

The EU decisions makers are also not as knowledgable in computer technical issues as even the virtually computer-illiterate american judges.

I'm sure you can provide us with data to back up this assessment; because otherwise: Go away, troll!

--
ich bin der musikant

mit taschenrechner in der hand

kraftwerk

Re:You troll, I byte by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:45 · Score: 0

FYI, Novartis and Roche are both Swiss companies, and Switzerland is not part of the EU.
Re:You troll, I byte by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 05:04 · Score: 0

If they violated the law, which is subject of an ongoing investigation, you can bank on it that they won't get off easy.

Huh? Because no crime goes unpunished in the EU?
Re:You troll, I byte by jazman_777 · 2002-11-05 07:06 · Score: 1

Ah, here we go again. The Airbus consortium is a private company which received funding capital as a credit. Airbus is in no way subsidized nowadays as opposed to (e.g.) Boieng which relies heavily on defense contracts, which can be construed a subsidy in itself.
The Joint Strike Fighter program is a giant boondoggle, as is the F-22. I mean, what threats are there to US Air Superiority? Alien starships, maybe, or some Boeing jetliners. But here we go, pumping billions of taxpayer money into the military-industrial complex (aka "taxeaters").

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by dinog · 2002-11-05 04:31 · Score: 1

So Microsoft withdraws and the EU then fails to ever enforce a Microsoft copyright ever again. This is simply not an option for Microsoft as they need the EU market far more than the EU needs them. Also, Microsoft has physical / capital assets in the EU.

I don't think the businesses would be as hurt as you imagine. The patches would still be available elsewhere, and as we all know, if you distribute it to someone over in the US, it is just an email away from the EU.

Dino

Re:DotSlash - anyone interested? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:31 · Score: 0

Uhm, how is this flamebait? Offtopic it may be, but it's only going to be flamebait to Taco and co.

Oh wait, they're the ones who are moderating. Maybe they see their users posing a threat: a Slash without adverts and typos and dupes and corrpution would destroy this site within a few months.

Requirements by tsa · 2002-11-05 04:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Like with cars, they could enforce that every computer program sold must comply with certain requirements. For instance, it would be really cool if every computer program sold in the EU must come with a manual that describes every file format it uses in detail so the data generated with that program can in principle be read and used by other programs with no big problems.

--

-- Cheers!

Re:Requirements by mormop · 2002-11-05 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

After 3 years selling Linux, Open Office being able to open MS Office docs 100% would without a doubt cause many of my customers to dump MS and go Linux.

Reasons:

The one customer I have who has gone 100% Linux, server desktop and all rates it for:

1: Stability - No crashes in months
2: Lack of Viruses - No Viruses in over a year
3: Cost - They couldn't have afforded the network they have with MS licence fees
4: Flexibility - We can write them scripts to do pretty much anything they want.
5: Positive attitude of community to cries for help

Downsides:

1: Had to redo Publisher docs in OO.org Draw
2: Old MS Office docs come out mangled on OO.org if anything beyond text,tables and pics are used.

Messgae to the EU competition commision:

FORCE THE FILE FORMATS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE MONOPOLY WILL BE BROKEN!!!!!!

This includes IE5/6 extensions.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Re:Requirements by mpe · 2002-11-05 06:20 · Score: 2

Downsides:
1: Had to redo Publisher docs in OO.org Draw

Publisher is a pain in the neck, about the only program which will open publisher documents with any degree of reliability is the same version of publisher they were created with.
As well as having a strange mode where it will refuse to save.

2: Old MS Office docs come out mangled on OO.org if anything beyond text,tables and pics are used.

You can't be sure that they wouldn't come out mangled with a different version of Word, sometimes even one with a different default printer setting can cause the most strange manglings.

pre-emptive by dpilot · 2002-11-05 04:41 · Score: 1, Offtopic

"Regime change begins at home!"

I'd been thinking this for a while, wishing I'd come up with it as a bumper sticker - then the other day I saw one already printed up, on a car in a parking lot.

It distresses me greatly to see the US acting in many ways like its own definition of a Rogue State. Anyway, this morning on the way to work I did what I could - I voted.

Tidbit about War with Iraq... IMHO the side-effects are worse than the original problem. Maybe Iraq will develop a nuke in a year, maybe not. Maybe weapons inspectors will do their jobs. If Iraq does develop a nuke, maybe they will use it, maybe not.

But if we go to war with Iraq, there is a not-too-short list of Arab states which we call allies that may fall to internal Islamic revolutions. One of these is Pakistan, posesser of 15-50 nukes, original home to the Taliban.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:pre-emptive by speculums · 2002-11-05 06:06 · Score: 1

I felt the same way. I havn't voted for over ten years, but the current situations got me over to the both to punch some holes. Nice and early in the A.M., as they say here in Chicago, "Vote early and vote often".

If nothing else, voting gets retirees something to do for a day.

--

--
Vivez sans temps mort
Re:pre-emptive by EzInKy · 2002-11-05 08:15 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Arab states like this one need to fall.

"Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers."

As do other extremist Islamic states like this one.

"An Islamic court in northern Nigeria has postponed an appeal hearing on behalf of a woman sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of adultery. Safiya Husaini's lawyers had been seeking to overturn the conviction on the grounds that she was raped. But she now says that the baby at the centre of the case was fathered by her former husband. "

Exactly why again are my fellow "liberals" so concerned with maintaining stability in countries that violate human rights we take for granted every day? When did it become okay to persecute and discriminate against people because that is their cultures way of doing things?

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:pre-emptive by dpilot · 2002-11-05 09:11 · Score: 2

I'll make no arguments whatsoever in favor of such governments, other than current US expediency.

But when I say there are Arab governments poised to fall, they're poised to fall to Islamic fundamentalism. So take what you deplore in northern Nigeria and spread it around to more places.

Sometimes you get really tough choices: Would you rather have a corrupt secular government or a radical Islamist one? Honestly, the hope I see is in Iran. There appears to be a strong segment trying to emerge from the far side of Islamist fundamentalism, with some success. I really wish we would constructively engage that element of their country rather than label the whole place, "Axis of Evil."

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:pre-emptive by EzInKy · 2002-11-05 09:36 · Score: 1

Agreed on Iran, the people seem well on their way to democracy despite their fundamentalist leaders.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 04:46 · Score: 0

More US-bashing. Whoopty-fucking-doo. Don't you France-appeasers have some croissants to fuck? You're wasting your time here...

Re:Oh boy by mormop · 2002-11-05 10:07 · Score: 1

1 GW. Bush - "I won't do anything to hurt Americas economy"

2 Microsoft get slap on wrist agreement from DoJ

3 CKK verifies slap on wrist and tells M$ business as usual

This and other things, e.g. steel tariffs, extensive use of WTO to enforce trade agreements that benefit US (can't be arsed to list them, there's just too many) have led to a wide spread belief that the US is empire building.

Now empire building is normal, Britain did it (and was criticised for it by the US during the 20th century), France did it (NB III), Rome did it, Austro Hungary did it and Germany did it (39-45) but the difference between all these and the current US economic Empire is that all the others realised that if you build an empire you will piss more than a few people off and will have to expect some backlash.

Whether the backlash is deserved or not is irrelevant it just happens. So rather than sitting their whinging about "more US bashing" in the tone of a redneck Jerry Springer guest I'd start asking "What are my country and the corporations in it doing that is pissing these people off".

BTW, I've been to America, Nice place, nice people. Shame about the behaviour of the Multi-nationals though.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

Re:It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopol by The+J+Kid · 2002-11-05 05:21 · Score: 2

Bzzt. Wrong. You're the weakest link, goodby!

Let me correct you're comment:

GWB - We're introducing tariffs on all european products imported into the states!

EU - No you're not, we'll do the same to you, and this'll hit you harder than us Muhahahahaha!

"click" (sound of button being pressed to revoke the certificates of every bit of Fritz Chip managed M$ office software in Europe)

"Ping" (Sound of business not having to buy costly MS updates ever again, and can plan out a nice move to Linux)

You were saying?

--
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.

A little OT, but ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2002-11-05 05:28 · Score: 4

... I've really got to say something about this. I know it's meant to be funny, but it's not, at least to anyone who has the slightest grasp of military history.

Well, I must assume then that Commissioner Mario Monti couldn't be French then, or the EU would have surrendered by now.

The French didn't roll over in WW2. They were beaten, on the battlefield, by an army which was at the time far and away the best in the world. What the Germans did to France, they could easily have done to Russia, England, and even the US, if it hadn't been for space and cold, the English Channel, and the Atlantic Ocean, respectively. Anyone who thinks cowardice is a French national characteristic should go count the graves at Verdun.

At the very least, do a Google search on the phrase "ils ne passeront pas" before you post stuff like this.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Re:A little OT, but ... by Kyaphas · 2002-11-05 06:34 · Score: 0, Troll

Yeah, ok I did. It said that the Battle of Verdun was in 1916. Which means it was World War 1, not 2.

What was it you were saying again?

I'm no military history buff, but I can use google!! ;-)

--
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
Re:A little OT, but ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2002-11-05 07:06 · Score: 2

Yeah, ok I did. It said that the Battle of Verdun was in 1916. Which means it was World War 1, not 2.

What was it you were saying again?
What I'm saying is that the character of the French people did not somehow magically deteriorate between the wars; the field commanders who were devastated by the Germans in WW2 had been young lieutenants and captains in WW1, and had fought bravely and capably at Verdun and other bloodbaths. The difference was that the quality of the German and French armies was roughly equal in WW1, while the Germans were much, much better than the French (and everyone else, at least at first) in WW2. But "better" here is a technical judgement, not a moral one.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:A little OT, but ... by phatlipmojo · 2002-11-05 07:31 · Score: 1

Word. Also, you wouldn't hear any Americans suggesting the French were cowardly after the Battle of Yorktown.

--

Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.

The parable of the selfish pricks by Anarchofascist · 2002-11-05 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you...

Reminds me of a story...

One upon a time there was a dangerous slippery cliff at the end of a road before a little village.

Every so often travellers along the road would slip, slip, slip over the cliff edge and fall to their deaths; and be collected by the village funeral director. Or they would slip, slip, slip over the edge and be badly injured; and the village doctors and nurses would tend to their wounds.

Eventually the mayor of the town announced a fence should be built at the top of the cliff, warning people of the danger.

"No!" cried the doctors and nurses. "We have families and mortgages to pay with the money we get for treating the injured!"

"No!" cried the funeral directors and morgue attendants. "We need the money from the funerals to support our families and mortgages too!"

The mayor was saddened by this reaction, but decided upon a compromise. The fence would not be built, but a sign would be erected saying "please support the local economy - jump off the cliff!"

The sign was erected, and is still there this very day.

--
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!

Re:The parable of the selfish pricks by jazman_777 · 2002-11-05 07:28 · Score: 1

The mayor was saddened by this reaction, but decided upon a compromise. The fence would not be built, but a sign would be erected saying "please support the local economy - jump off the cliff!"
When I worked in the war industry, I recall cheering for wars, because they were good for us. Now _that_ is warped.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:The parable of the selfish pricks by geekee · 2002-11-05 13:30 · Score: 1

That's a terrible analogy. A better one is that the govt., because of companies like Sun and Netscape, wants to push MS over the cliff in the interest of competition. If you don't like MS products, you don't need to buy them. There are plenty of cheaper alternatives.

--
Vote for Pedro

taking aim ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 05:50 · Score: 0

could be that hanging is just way too good for the skalywags.

maybe they need to stew in their phony payper liesense stock markup hostage ransom scam, for another year or two?

anyway, we're ?thrilled? beyond exclamation about being found to be one of the "Top 10 Companies for 2002(tm)" by fuddles search thingy. what a break for us?

I guess there's just no escaping the good gnus.

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by mpe · 2002-11-05 06:24 · Score: 2

Fine MS pull all their products out of the EU, no-one in europe can legally buy or own any microsoft products.

Microsoft have no power to say what is and isn't legal to do with their software in the EU. If they were to stop selling Windows within the EU they can't suddenly wave a magic wand to make all their software disappear.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean /Airbus by panurge · 2002-11-05 06:55 · Score: 2

Actually, Airbus is not heavily subsidised. That's Boeing.

EU rules apply to Airbus. Although it had govt. start up funding this was a loan which it since has paid back. Boeing, on the other hand, is subsidised by pork barrel military aircraft production with huge margins. They really need a war with Iraq
Even so, Boeing is now less competitive simply because it makes too many designs of planes, too many cockpit types, in a part of the world where engineering and manufacturing costs are way too high. Boeing is a victim of globalisation. And, er, doesn't this sound a bit like Microsoft, except that Microsoft increasingly design and sells offshore?

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

OT: Chicago by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-11-05 07:28 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Got this T-Shirt for my mom to wear while voting:

"I'm from Chicago... TWO BALLOTS PLEASE!"

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.

Media is wrong. Microsoft will be broken up. by ajulius · 2002-11-05 07:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its amazing how the media really has misinterpreted the Microsoft settlement. If you look at the court of appeals ruling in full, you will note that the appeals court did not strike down the breakup of microsoft because that was the wrong thing to do. It refused, rightfully so because the remedy hearings were not held. Judge Kollar-Kotely made a ruling that was contradictory to the court of appeals. The settling states made sure that the 9 non settling states were not bound by the microsoft settlement. What happened unfortunately is that the Bush administration and/or Judge Kollar-Kotely played politics with the Microsoft case. It felt that because of the acts of Sept 11th, that the economy would be hurt too much by a breakup of Microsoft. If you just look at the reason we had the settlement phase inself, it mentioned the acts of sept 11th in Kollar-Kotely's own legal documents as the reason why the case needed to be resolved quickly. The legal system is not a political system and therefore, this ruling will indeed be overturned on appeal. And yes, it will be appealed by the 9 non settling states, and those states will be lead by California Attorney General Bill Lockyear. As of around November 8th or shortly thereafter, the media will then spin the case back to the way it should be going which is to a microsoft breakup.

This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-05 08:17 · Score: 1

Under the settlement in the US, Microsoft:

"must release some technical data to other software developers to enable them to write programmes for Windows"

Not including any code that Microsoft deems would present a security risk. This is a huge hole that Microsoft will use to selectively release only minimally useful code.

"may not retaliate against computer makers which use rival products"

So they will reward companies who don't use rival products... Same difference.

"must create uniform licensing terms for its software"

I'm not sure how Microsoft will twist this one around. Maybe someone else knows.

"must allow manufacturers and customers to remove icons for some Microsoft features"

Removing Icon's is not the same thing as removing the code and bloat that goes with it.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-05 14:25 · Score: 1

You must think you're really important, that you should have the power to tell MS how to do business. I don't go into your home and tell you what you can and cannot do. I hope there are so many loopholes that MS can keep doing business as usual. They're not pointing a gun at anyone and infringing on their rights. But you're more than happy to let the govt. point guns at MS and tell them what they can and cannot do with their own product. I hope they start regulating Linux and Apple some day so people on slashdot will understand the consequences of their belief systems.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-06 08:50 · Score: 2

Read my post dude.... Where did I tell Microcrap how to do business??

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-06 17:57 · Score: 1

By approving of any govt. measure that forces MS to change any policy of theirs, you are telling MS how to run their business. Antitrust regulations violate the basic rights of Americans to trade freely. MS never pointed a gun at anyone and made them accept their terms. The govt. now, however, is pointing a gun at MS and telling them what they can and cannot do in negotiating contracts with OEMs

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-07 06:19 · Score: 2

MS broke the law. It was proven in court and they were found guilty. These measures are supposed to correct Microsoft's ILLEGAL behavior.

I do not approve of these measures because as you said, they are not strong enough to deter Microsoft from it abhorrent behavior. Personally I feel that they should be broken up into at least three different companies.

It is not too much to expect companies to obey the law and punish those that don't.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-08 15:57 · Score: 1

Antitrust laws are against the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the US guarantees, and should be purged from our legal system. Breaking up MS is a perfect example of the federal govt. infringing on individual freedoms. How would you like it if the federal govt. started passing laws about who you could marry or be friends with, etc. This is the level of freedom that you are suggesting taking away from MS executives and employees. Makes what Ashcroft is doing look like nothing in comparison.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-09 08:44 · Score: 2

The antitrust laws are there to prevent monopolies like Microsoft from using unfair advantages to prevent others from taking market share and also to extend there power into other spheres of business using the same unfair advantages. If we allow monopolies to use their position to crush and stifle competition then soon we will all be hostages to a single monopoly in each business.

That would destroy free market checks and balances. If I am the only one who produces a product that you need then I can charge whatever I want. I would have no real competition to drive down the price and depending on how badly you need the product that I produce I can bully you into paying whatever I want. 'Here is the medicine you need to save your life.... $25,000.00.... pay or die...'

'Here is my OS, $650.00.... pay or don't use a computer... And remember that we have bullied all of the hardware manufacturers into making hardware that will only run our OS.... '

Microsoft broke the law and it is right that we maintain free market balance by punishing them.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-13 18:49 · Score: 1

What unfair advantage? They have the majority marketshare that they earned. How is that unfair? As for our medicine thing, it's fine to charge $25000, if their are a limited number of cases and if it costs $20,000,000 to research. That's why we have insurance. If you say pay $650 or don't use a computer, another competitor will develop a competing product and charge $100. That's how free market works. Free market balance is inherent, and shouldn't be tampered with if for no other reason than it's a violation of a civil liberty.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-14 08:58 · Score: 2

"If you say pay $650 or don't use a computer, another competitor will develop a competing product and charge $100."

You miss the point.

Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market give or take a point or two. They have already gone to major manufacturer's of computers like Dell, Compaq etc. and told them that if they shipped ANY of there computers with any non-Microsoft OS that they would have to pay more for the EVERY Microsoft OS that they ship.

If I developed my own OS and told Compaq that, they would laugh in my face and tell me to get the hell out. However, being that Microsoft is a monopoly it would be a big impact if Compaq had to charge more than its competitors to ship Computers with a Microsoft OS. So, when Microsoft flexes it's monopoly muscle in this (and other) unfair way(s) the free market isn't truly a free market anymore.

If we have a truly free market Linux will eventually displace Microsoft's OS and Microsoft knows it.

"As for our medicine thing, it's fine to charge $25000, if their are a limited number of cases and if it costs $20,000,000 to research. That's why we have insurance."

I didn't say that there are a limited number of cases or that the research cost was high. If a single unregulated drug company has a monopoly on a drug they can financially rape the public. And no, no, no, this is NOT what insurance is for!

Insurance isn't there so that it can pay for artificially inflated prices! Everyone ends up paying through higher premiums and co-pays. Insurance isn't a free ride.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-14 21:51 · Score: 1

"You miss the point. Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market give or take a point or two. They have already gone to major manufacturer's of computers like Dell, Compaq etc. and told them that if they shipped ANY of there computers with any non-Microsoft OS that they would have to pay more for the EVERY Microsoft OS that they ship."

MS shouldn't be forced to help their competition. If they don't want to sell to anyone because they're also selling competing products, that's they're right. No one's stopping an OEM from selling non-MS products only. The burden needs to be on the new OS to convince someone it's worth the venture.

I didn't say that there are a limited number of cases or that the research cost was high. If a single unregulated drug company has a monopoly on a drug they can financially rape the public. And no, no, no, this is NOT what insurance is for!"

If it weren't for the drug company there would be NO cure and your only option would be to die. By regulating the price, you kill incentive to develop new drugs, and then you have no new drugs. Better to let a company charge $25000 if they want. It's their creation. You have no right to take it from them or tell them how they can sell it. To do so is immoral. I never claimed insurance was a free ride, but drug development isn't either. Gore now admits wanting to socialize medicine. How many good doctors are we going to lose under this policy because they don't think med school is worth the effort to earn a govt. salary.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This just burns me... by Eric+Damron · 2002-11-15 08:42 · Score: 2

"MS shouldn't be forced to help their competition. If they don't want to sell to anyone because they're also selling competing products, that's they're right."

Wrong! That's not their right and if fact it is BREAKING THE F***ING LAW!! I don't give a shit if you agree or not it IS the law! If you don't like it then work to have the god damn law changed!!

"No one's stopping an OEM from selling non-MS products only. The burden needs to be on the new OS to convince someone it's worth the venture."

If an OEM like Compaq decided to sell only non-Microsoft products they would go out of business and THAT IS STOPPING THEM. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product it ONLY has to do with Microsoft's monopoly. It is ILLEGAL for Microsoft to use its monopoly position to dictate what another company should sell. And before you spew out the "nobody held a gun to their head" bullshit let me point out that holding a gun to someone's head is not the only way that Microsoft can do real damage to others. Putting a company into a position where they cannot compete does real, tangible damage that goes beyond "Helping one's competition." Which is why it is ILEGAL!

I can see that, the government can see that. Hell, you may be the only one on the entire flippin' planet that can't see that!

"If it weren't for the drug company there would be NO cure and your only option would be to die. By regulating the price, you kill incentive to develop new drugs, and then you have no new drugs."

Bullshit! You only regulate if you must in order to prevent the most powerful companies to take unfair advantage of their position because of their rampant greed!

"Better to let a company charge $25000 if they want. It's their creation. You have no right to take it from them or tell them how they can sell it. To do so is immoral."

Bullshit! If a company is in a position to extort cash because you don't have alternatives (Like in the case of monopolies) then to allow them to do so is immoral. As far as having a right to regulate companies WE DO HAVE THAT RIGHT! It is the LAW. If you don't like it the work to get the flippin' law changed. Don't cry on my shoulder because we don't see things the same way!

"I never claimed insurance was a free ride, but drug development isn't either."

Obviously development isn't cheap and that's why drug companies get patents so that they can have an artificial monopoly for a period of time that will allow them to recoup their expenses and make a profit. That has nothing to do with allowing them to use that monopoly to rape the public.

Look you obviously are incapable of seeing the injustice that monopolies can inflict on the public and I really don't have any more time to explain this position. I understand what you are saying and I think that it is bullshit. (As do most people and especially the ones who drafted the laws concerning monopoly behavior.)

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:This just burns me... by geekee · 2002-11-16 12:56 · Score: 1

If you give the govt. the right to take away someone's freedom, such as that of the people who run MS, don't be surprised when they start taking away your freedom.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by.. by skahshah · 2002-11-05 09:23 · Score: 1

There wouldn't be a "one day on, one day off" effect. You seeem to think that everything would change overnight. Everybody would go on with their MS products, as they are doing now. And within a year, I bet there would be a lot of solutions (on Linux, Mac OS X, RiscOS, etc...) to migrate.

The retail sector would be hit, and with help would recover. The support sector certainly wouldn't be hit

But anyway, it is very unlikely that MS withdraws from EU.

Re:It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopol by mormop · 2002-11-05 09:40 · Score: 1

You seem to have misinterpreted the point of my comment.

Allow me to clarify:

1: I'm British (European in an off the mainland kinda way) and hence have no desire to allow any US based multinational to switch off my business's desktops if they want to flex their economic muscle.

2: It is my hope that the Germans and French (who both have Linux going into their Govt. services) will have the good sense to overcome the sycophantic, multi-national toadying habits of our beloved Prima Donna minister and come down on Microsoft with the full force required to stuff their monopoly where the sun don't shine.

If this is the case I am sure that my self employed life selling Linux systems and services will be eased when businesses discover they can have stable computers and can even open the old M$ docs they've built up over the years. I say this because MS Office file formats are the main block to my business making decent amounts of money.

How so? Few businesses are willing to accept having to port their existing .doc, .xls, .ppt etc. files just to switch office suites. They have better things to do with their time and I'm afraid that until OO.org has a 100% hit rate on file compatability they won't take the leap.

And finally, please, before correcting my spelling......... Goodbye has an 'e' on the end. Just like Dan Quale's potato ;)

And theirs no buzzer on the weakest link, just that well known winker Anne Robinson.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

Oh dear-how low we have fallen by ThufirHawat · 2002-11-05 10:22 · Score: 1

It seems that sql*kitten may have some sight troubles, as s/he doesn't read what s/he quotes.
The "open skies" agreement article on Reuter s/he quotes does not prove at all that "EU Courts" disagree with national courts. On the contrary, it refers to a ruling that declared illegal separate agreements concluded by the EU Member States with the US. There is case law aplenty that proves that EU Law takes precedence over national law (beginning with the Costa v ENEL landmark ruling]. This is not a matter of voters. The European Union is not Texas, it is a union where there is the rule of law...
Member states may be fined astronomical amounts for non compliance with the European Court of Justice rulings(and some, like Greece, have, in the past). Fining MS would not be hard at all, and they would have to pay.
So, does sql*kitten write from Redmond, confusing his/her wishful thinking with reality? Or does s/he really believe what the propaganda zombies of the BBC write on behalf of the British and US governments?

--
Thufir Hawat
Part-time Mentat

yawn! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-05 10:26 · Score: 0

They're all moving to Linux anyway. Beating a dead horse, anyone?

Reply to the AC by Corporate+Troll · 2002-11-05 10:33 · Score: 1

So you say it's either Microsoft or the Terrorists that win?
Now that's some kind of dillema! The Terrorists are definately in lead for me right now ;-)

Yes, I'm kidding... I don't support terrorism.

Hope EU keeps up pressure by bradmac · 2002-11-05 13:22 · Score: 1

Hope the EU keeps up the pressure to help make sure the web keeps open and not be turned into what is sometimes happening with IE. A programmer at the company I work with send me the following message after I complained that the web site only worked with IE and some of the functionality only when running IE with Windows and it really irritated me stating that I should switch to Windows to use what was called a web funtion/program: " The simple fact is that the browsers are similar, but far from identical. Most people now believe that the browser wars are over and that Microsoft won. If you subscribe to that theory, then using Internet Explorer will make your life easier. If not, then it will be an upstream swim. ...If there is anything I can do I will offer my assistance; there is an easy out, however: just join the dark side, Luke."

Re:Hope EU keeps up pressure by geekee · 2002-11-05 14:18 · Score: 1

Yeah. It would be terrible if we actually let people decide what software they want to run on their servers. It would be much better if govt. types point guns at us and tell us what software we must run on our machines.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Damnit by geekee · 2002-11-05 13:49 · Score: 1

So you're blaming MS because OEMs voluntarily chose to dump BeOS at MS's request. MS can't force anyone to do anything. They can only negotiate contracts. They can't force anyone to do anything. Don't blame MS because no one was willing to take a chance on BeOS.

--
Vote for Pedro

laws by zogger · 2002-11-05 14:02 · Score: 1

--for better or worse, we have laws against monopolies, or monopolies that are abusive. they are counter productive, not productive. Microsoft got convicted of being a monopoly, and of getting there illegally and of being abusive. Anarchy just ain't gonna work, microsoft wants anarchy for themselves and fascism for everone else, they want YOU to conform to their EULAS, swell, peachy keen, but THEY don't want to conform to OUR offical laws, our "EULA" we as an organized society maintain.

THEY BROKE THE EULA THEY AGREED TO, BROKE IT IN A MILLION PIECES. Our EULAS, our laws of conduct and commerce, this is proven DATA, it's indisputable now, it's not "opinion".

What part of them breaking our EULAS don't you get?

My position is no different from yours, I actually agree with it, except I readily see both EULAS and you obviously can't, don't or won't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, microsoft wanted to be free to break the law, but they throw a hissy fit if they find anyone breaking their contract EULA law.

Ain't happening man. A crook is a crook is a crook. You support crookedness or you don't. You buy purchase and support from some crooked mafia org you don't.

I DON'T, YM obviously V quite a bit.

Re:laws by geekee · 2002-11-06 17:32 · Score: 1

Antitrust legislation is immoral and therefore bad legislation. It sacrifices the individual rights of business owners, "for the good of the people". This is a socialistic mentality that goes against everything the US stands for. MS should break these antitrust rules as a form of civil disobedience. Now we see how absurd they are when a govt. appointed judge is writing contracts for MS. Hopefully this case will lead to repealing of these unamerican laws. Probably not though given the attitude of the typical American that big business is somehow evil, and deserves whatever the govt. feels like doing to them.

--
Vote for Pedro

What happens if Linux becomes the #1 OS? by geekee · 2002-11-05 14:30 · Score: 1

So, if everyone on slashdot's dream comes true, and Linux becomes the dominant OS, are we willing to accept regulation from the US and EU? Are we willing to let the US govt. tell Linus what features he can and cannot put in the kernel, without becoming "anticompetitve". Poor OSDoe can't compete anymore because of feature Z in Linux now, so we the govt. will need to ban that from the Linux distros. Be careful what you wish for from the govt. You may set a precedent that will come back to haunt you in the future.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Damnit by ninthwave · 2002-11-05 21:02 · Score: 2

But they were willing to take a chance on BeOS but they were told if they dual booted BeOS they couldn't have MS. And if they sold BeOS only machines they could lose MS. So they were telling companies to get OEM versions of software to preinstall you couldn't offer a dual boot solution and you couldn't offer another operating system on seperate machines and keep selling MS.

Which takes out the mechanism that Free Open Markets needs to prevent a monopoly, consumer choice. A computer hardware vendor offers preinstalled operating systems for its customers and for the os companies as a service. But this does not make them a selling arm of the operating system company. If microsoft set up dealerships like car manufacturers I could see this policy but the OEM relationship was not designed or implemented like this and this is to me the definition of monopolistic practice. Using your market share to force suppliers from supplying alternatives to your products.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

French are lovers, not fighters by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-06 03:50 · Score: 0

French are not so tough as they used to be,
they lost their 3 last wars and not all the time against all powerfull armies.

T.

Re:Damnit by geekee · 2002-11-06 17:52 · Score: 1

MS has the right to negotiate contracts without govt. interference. This includes the right to sell or not sell a product to an OEM for whatever reason. To take away this right is an infringement of a basic liberty guaranteed to all Americans. There's nothing in the constitution that guarantees you a choice of products or services, however. You only have the right to negotiate with available sellers. Antitrust laws are a violation of the basic freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, and should be repealed.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Damnit by ninthwave · 2002-11-06 23:02 · Score: 2

No the constitution never guaranteed rights to corporations. The bill of rights is for individuals.

"Supreme Courts have been shaped philosophically by their members, particularly by the chief justice. To preserve the new constitutional experiment, the Marshall court sought protection for men of property who would give the nation stability and permanence. Many legal ways were found to virtually sanctify property rights and ensure federal supremacy. Article I, section 10's proscription of state violation of the obligation of contracts was interpreted to include everything from private contracts to state- granted charters of incorporation to private companies. Interstate commerce, which Congress constitutionally had authority to regulate, was interpreted to include almost every kind of commercial activity. Congress' power over it was complete in itself and could be exercised to its utmost extent, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the constitution.

In two other areas Marshall set patterns: the supremacy of federal over state courts was established clearly and permanently, and the so-called "necessary and proper" clause (the last of the powers delegated to Congress under Article I, section 8) was interpreted broadly as a positive authorization for Congress to find means to accomplish appropriate national ends.

Jacksonian Democracy placed new emphasis on freer economic competition. As it also placed a new generation of judges on the bench-headed by Roger B. Taney-the law quickly reflected this changed focus. Emphasizing, in his first opinion, that "while the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have rights," Chief Justice Taney went on to lay a legal basis for freedom of competition, both through encouraging local banking and commerce and by guaranteeing the right of corporations to do interstate business."

from http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/const.htm l

"60. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936)
(``a corporation is a `person' within the meaning of the equal
protection and due process of law clauses''). In First Nat'l Bank of
Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), faced with the validity of
state restraints upon expression by corporations, the Court did not
determine that corporations have First Amendment liberty rights--and
other constitutional rights--but decided instead that expression was
protected, irrespective of the speaker, because of the interests of the
listeners. See id. at 778 n.14 (reserving question). But see id. at 809,
822 (Justices White and Rehnquist dissenting) (corporations as creatures
of the state have the rights state gives them)."

from http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg1578.shtml

The whole article is good because it shows court cases on the definition of corporations within the courts over time and the conflict of these decisions.

This has an overview of the 14th ammendment and its various uses which includes corporations rights and their validity or definition compared to citizens rights

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/consti tu tion/amdt14.html

Read the constitution it is a good document but the corporation as a concept was left for the states to decide the federal courts have argued on the rights of this created citizen called corporation since.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

corporations by zogger · 2002-11-07 03:31 · Score: 1

--in a way I agree with you, but let's take it back further. anti trust laws are a predictable extension following the even more immoral stance of legislating into reality the natural personhood of an artificial construct, said "corporations". "Corporations" are virtual constructs, the actual stuff done is done by named human beings. That's where the problem is, business OWNERS, real carbon based life forms, have "rights", corporations as such do not have rights except as they have been codified into the abortion the UCC is, and as such should be scrapped to zero. Originally they were NOT supposed to be either permanent nor given "human" status, like they do now. When that happened, the eventual monopolies with no or l;ittle risk to the humans behind them came about. Unfortunately, they use this cowardly method of doing business, ie, they hide behind the front of the person known as a corporation and cut their personal risk as they can blame whatever they want to on the 'corporation" diod such and such when in reality it is named humans making decisions and doing things in meatworld.

I'd be totally in agreement with you the exact second the laws were changed that no "corporation" had lawful status-level as a natural person like they do now. Until then, the next best method is to follow the charade and treat corporations as what they claim to be, natural persons, and put restrictions on them same as anyone else. I think it's a premier sucky way to do it, but it's what we have now.

I've never been in favor of actually taking "microsoft" to court, I always wanted to see named human beings taken to court for fraud and extortion. I actually could care less about microsoft inc. I am completely in favor of scrapping the current codes as relating to corporations and go back to the original plan, were "rights" only existed for indivdual human beings. man made copnstructs like assemblages of soverign states into a nation, states themselves, and private corporations should have no "rights", they should only have agreed to and strictly limited priveleges based completely on the code of conduct outlined in whatever a soverign individuals rights are, and nothing more. What we have now is 180 degrees from that, that's why there are so many p[roblems, accountability is out the window, it's almost impossible to hold the actions of human beings TO human beings when they are allowed to claim this faceless artificial construct called the corporation did such and such but they had no part in it.

It is obviously slightly more complex than this, but I've tried to explain it adequately. I would suggest if you are honestly interested in learning more, for you to research the history of corporations and what actual lawful "names" and what their "lawful" status is when you register a corporation. Now that's what's obscenely bogus. Get rid of that and we can go back to lawful and ethical business.

Re:corporations by geekee · 2002-11-08 15:46 · Score: 1

A corporation is simply a group of people cooperating towards some end. These people should have the same freedoms businesses composed of one person should have. Normally you don't see companies in criminal court, except for bs legislation. Note executives at Enron, etc. are appearing as individuals in criminal courts for fraud, etc.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopol by The+J+Kid · 2002-11-07 04:12 · Score: 2

and I'm afraid that until OO.org has a 100% hit rate on file compatability they won't take the leap.

Ah, but Open Source has all the time in the world, and anyway business (who'll have Office 97/2000 ), don't want to change over right now anyway, so there is more time to get OO.org up to scratch.

Goodbye has an 'e' on the end. Just like Dan Quale's potato ;)

Typng is fr wimps. :P

And theirs no buzzer on the weakest link, just that well known winker Anne Robinson.

I got the bzzt from 'Have I got news for you' also on BBC..

PS. I'm from Britain too and yes, we are european too. Get used to it.

--
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.

Re:Damnit by geekee · 2002-11-08 15:51 · Score: 1

A corporation is simply a group of individuals cooperating towards some business goal. To limit the rights of this group of individuals is ridiculous and wrong, despite what US law says and what US courts have said. What if I treated your family like a corporation and said you have individual rights, but you, your wife, and your kids together don't have any rights. To say something like that doesn't even make sense. Corporations are not some abtract concept, but groups of real people which should have the same freedoms individuals have.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Damnit by ninthwave · 2002-11-08 23:26 · Score: 2

Your metaphor is wrong with the way law works.

If a family were a corporation the individuals in the family would have rights and the family as a unit would be a legal entity with rights.

So my son has rights as an individual, my wife has rights as an individual but any action they do when acting as part of the family is blanketed by the family entity.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

Re:Could care less about MS. BABY FUCKER! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-09 14:33 · Score: 0

Yo, baby fucker. Hey, question, Red Blood October communist fucker. When you rape babies with diapers on, after you fuck them, do you put the diaper back on? And if you do, do you give them a fresh one or let the blood and shit and piss mix together?

Re:Damnit by geekee · 2002-11-13 18:37 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to be metaphoric. I'm saying that if the govt. started legislating what you and your kids could do as a group, even if they weren't things infringing on other families rights,you'd say that was against the principles on which the US was founded. Yet when they do it to groups of people in business together, people think it's ok.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Damnit by ninthwave · 2002-11-14 00:08 · Score: 2

But the family unit doesn't get protection from the actions of individuals.

By creating an entity called a corporation, you are creating an entity to exist within a scope of law for that entity. You seperate the individuals from legal responsibility of the actions of the company, you seperate the individual from debt liability from the company, because the individuals are protected this entity has to have different laws to control its rights and civic responsibilities. Some of those laws include making the individuals accountable, some include fining the institution for crimes committed by the entity, mainly because a corporation can not be put in prison so it must be fined instead. So because a corporation has protection of the individuals within the corporation you have to have different rules to make sure the corporation is not used as a tool for illegal activity or that the corporation does not use these rules and economic power to bypass the rights of individuals. The consumer is a powerful unit but the market determines what the consumer can choice between when the market is controlled the consumer loses power, because choices are removed. Anti monopoly law is to make sure the market has this choice so the market is a free market and the consumer has a choice that will check the power of a corporation.

It isn't solid law and the concepts are vague but it is better than unchecked corporate control.
All you need to do is look in the history of industrial cities around early twentieth century factories to see how without protection of choice in the market place, how this system did affect the rights of people. A corporation in my opinion is a lesser entity than an individual, its rights should be below that of an individual.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

Re:Damnit by geekee · 2002-11-14 21:41 · Score: 1

If you give this type of power to govt., don't be surprised when they take away YOUR individual rights as well. Once you start saying certain individuals don't have certain rights, even though their actions aren't infringing on others rights, it's open season for the govt controlling your life. I see tons of complaints against govt regulation on slashdot, except when they're legislating MS, of course. So slashdotters shouldn't complain about the govt. They asked for it.

--
Vote for Pedro

Last Post! by alpg · 2002-11-19 05:42 · Score: 1

Dimensions will always be expressed in the least usable term, convertible
only through the use of weird and unnatural conversion factors. Velocity,
for example, will be expressed in furlongs per fortnight.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Mirror

EU Crosshair Still Points at Microsoft

273 comments