Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft To Be Fined E500M By European Union?

An anonymous reader writes "According to a Reuters story, the European Commission is in the process of fining Microsoft 497 million Euros ($613 million). The most important reason for the fine was the refusal by Microsoft to share more information about its products with competitors. Mario Monti, the EU competition commissioner, decided to impose the fine after talks with Microsoft broke down last week." The last estimate was a mere 100 million Euros, and it's noted: "If the full European Commission backs the fine as expected on Wednesday it would exceed the 462 million euro penalty imposed on Hoffman-La Roche AG in 2001 for being ringleader of a vitamin cartel."

1,029 comments

  1. Peering into my crystal ball... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    ~ The Timeline ~

    March 25, 2004 Microsoft fined E497M by the EU.

    April 05, 2004 Microsoft files appeal.

    June 11, 2004 Verdict upheld.

    June 22, 2004 Microsoft contributes heavily to the Republican party.

    July 05, 2004 EU declared part of the "Axis of Evil"

    July 13, 2004 Colin Powell declares the EU has "Weapons of mass destruction, without a doubt."

    July 27, 2004 US troops roll into the EU to promote Bush's "World Liberation '04" re-election campaign.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My crystal ball says Bill and Steve better pay soon, before that 500 euros is worth an even Billion dollars. :)

    2. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Ok I wouldn't find it very weird if it happened ;)

    3. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Raagshinnah · · Score: 4, Funny

      so when does skynet go online? before or after microsoft contributes to the republican party?

    4. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Now that is funny. But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?

      As for the verdict, having things go through courts all over the nation has good and bad consequences. Sure, the fine is a Good Thing because Microsoft deserves to be fined, since they ripped people off and have engaged in unfair, illegal competitive practices, and W's administration did not allow them to be brought to justice. But Microsoft, at the same time, is using international courts in its assault against Lindows (aka Lin----), which I would say is a Bad Thing.

    5. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      July 27, 2004 France surrenders.

    6. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must be the only person who thinks that the appeals process will take less than a couple of years.

    7. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is funny. But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler? If there is money in it, then yeah, you bet your ass he will.

    8. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      LOL. Another one of the famous French Milatary Victories

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now that is funny. But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?

      I don't see where the parent likens Bush to Hitler. Just because Bush isn't as bad as Hitler was, doesn't mean that Bush is a good president. Your argument is fallacious at best.

    10. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by xargoon · · Score: 0

      Haha.., but seriously.. :P
      Isn't the combined military power of EU much larger than the US military? We would kick your ass! :P

    11. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by grub · · Score: 1


      We would kick your ass!

      I'm in Canada, a well prepared Girl Guide troop could do that.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    12. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Well, many of the countries in EU are part of NATO - so they can count on support by the others in that alliance when attacked - it will mean that US has to send troops to defend Europe to defend upon the attacker - i.e. US.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    13. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by composer777 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has quite a a bit more military power than even all of the nations in the EU. Now, economically, the EU can definitely compete with the US, as is being shown by the falling value of the dollar in relation to the euro. And, if it's worth anything, I highly doubt that the US could win an all out war with the EU without annihilating the entire world in the process. So, it's not likely that we'll be invading Europe any time soon.

    14. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two? He's invaded more than that.

    15. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot to insert one item:

      July 26, 2004 French and Spanish pussies surrender.

    16. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined.

      Yeah, but those other ten countries aren't stupid enough to pay $600 for toilet seats. :o)

    17. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Check the numbers. Microsoft donates heavily to both parties.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    18. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      reading these two comments, i still can't decide.

      who's the more foolish: the fool or the fool who follows him?

    19. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I remember correctly, the treaties behind NATO say that other members of NATO aren't required to participate in any wars occurring between other NATO nations. So your point is moot, if still somewhat amusing.

    20. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by rajafarian · · Score: 5, Funny

      I highly doubt that the US could win an all out war with the EU without annihilating the entire world in the process. So, it's not likely that we'll be invading Europe any time soon.

      Yes, only an idiot would do that, right?

      Oh, wait...

    21. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good news is that EU commission seem to break the law when it is fining Microsoft. Microsoft can't be fined when it didn't break the law intentionally. In this software case, only a slashdot idiot would argue that Microsoft intentionally broke the law. Seems to me in the appeal case Microsoft is likely to win. Hehe, I think EU commission is too much hyped with the competitors' comments. Probably, the justice system will find Microsoft correct again.

    22. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which side would Canada be on ?

    23. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by TenPin22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      July 13, 2004 Colin Powell declares the EU has "Weapons of mass destruction, without a doubt."

      The UK and France have plenty of Nukes so go for it.

    24. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only court that can hear the appeal is the European Court of Justice. After that no further appeals are possible. A couple of years is a reasonable timescale.

      Why on earth did you get moderated "flamebait"?

    25. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but only one of the parites belives in world domination

    26. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're slightly wrong, according to that timeline it should be:

      July 14th, 2004 France Surrenders.

    27. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Tango42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You misunderstand. You don't attack the countries that actually have nukes, because they'll just nuke you (as a final act of desperation if not before). You attack anyone who doesn't have them, that you can trick people into thinking does. (normally because you gave nukes to them in the first place, then took them all back)

    28. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by toopc · · Score: 1
      My crystal ball says Bill and Steve better pay soon, before that 500 euros is worth an even Billion dollars. :)

      If they're worried about they can just stick 500 Euros in Bill's savings account tomorrow and let it collect interest while the appeals drag on.

      Bill could probably buy a new Ferrari (or 2) with the interest.

    29. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heinr... uuuhh... Reginald! You have ze wrong map here, you silly old leg-before-vicket English person!

    30. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by fredrik70 · · Score: 1
      Now that is funny. But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?


      well, maybe he's a slow starter...

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    31. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've just been fooled by a french.

    32. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Since the US got their fair share of nukes as well, i'd rather like them to stay away from each other

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    33. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French quit NATO central command and built their own nuclear missiles in the 50's and 60's precisely because they don't want to surrender to anyone. In particular, they don't want to depend on the US for their defense. The US has a history of on-again off-again isolationism. They helped in 1944, but they didn't get into the war until TWO YEARS after France was attacked.

      France does have WMDs (nuclear, chemical, even neutron bombs according to the rumor), but it has far fewer of them than the US.

      Incidentally, France is the only large country that has never been at war with the US. It sure isn't going to start now.

    34. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice of you to work all this out. We are eternally grateful for your mercy - and scandalised by your callousness.

      Give this one a roll: if the EU thought they could wipe out the US, they'd go for it. And the television audience would be greater than for the World Cup. 6 billion cheering them on.

    35. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by raidient · · Score: 1

      Well.. the EU does have WMD's but on past experience it takes years to get the US over here to fight!

      --
      My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
    36. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The UK and France have plenty of Nukes so go for it. ... and watch a few major US cities being nuked?

      The US can beat on Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, but
      beating nuclear-capable countries is something else (particularly since the UK and France are the two largest investors in the US!).

      The US couldn't even win a war against the Vietnamese jungle.

    37. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by neilcSD · · Score: 1

      GREAT attempt to get modded up. By the way, humor is funny, too.

    38. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I'd even join the military given the chance that I get to shoot some US failures in the head.

    39. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined.

      True enough. However, traditional military strategy has claimed one generally needs 3-to-1 superiority for certain victory, as attacker... so US would definitely need to have significantly bigger force to have clear victory if it chose to attack EU, and EU countries fought as an alliance (which of course is not all that certain, depending on how US handled preparation). And US currently can not really mobilize more than perhaps 1 million men, with current (high tech, high power, granted) infrastructure. That's much less than what europens could conscript; plus, their supply lines would be much much better.

      I know the whole scenario is just a far-fetched fantasy, but it's still an interesting mind game... I think US would have hard time conquering the continent, even ignoring nukes US and France have (and obvious problem with NATO consisting of western european countries and US).

      It's just that US has never really fought against an equal enemy, by itself (one could argue Mexico would count... but it was a has-been country back then, on slow but steady decline). So, such war would be interesting conflict; bit like Germany vs. Soviet union in WW2 (interesting in deeply perverted bloodthirsty sense, but interesting nonetheless).

    40. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by femmefatale27 · · Score: 1

      July 26th Blair kisses ass and supplies soildiers to aid their attack on the UK

    41. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Gorath99 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the conclusion at the end of your post, but being the nit-picker that I am, I have no choice but to point out that pouring 10 times as much money into your defense (offense?) force does not make it 10 times as powerful.

      A $10M mainframe does not necessarily outperform a cluster of 2,000 $500 machines.

    42. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by eljasbo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that they pay $600 for a toilet seat? The government is not stupid. They have to fund the secret ufo programs and other super secret x-files activities somehow. They cant just publicly ask for 'ufo reverse engineering funding' and have it appear this way on the books. That is why a toilet seat appears as $600 on a bill.

    43. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by JahToasted · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the nuclear age, having the most powerful military in the world is like being the best boxer in a gunfight.

    44. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I was just about to post that myself. Unfortunately it could happen.

    45. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are still some definite similarities between the two leaders.
      They were both first elected in dubious circumstances with less than majority support. They both support imprisonment without trial (one for terrorism, the other for communism). They are both strongly homophobic. They both pushed tighter regulations onto foriegners than natives, despite the fact that crime could come from either (think airport fingerprint checks, despite the fact there are terrorists already in America). Worried yet?

    46. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well maybe but I'm sure the US forces would have wiped out a good 2/3rds of their own side in 'friendly' fire by the time they got half away across the Atlantic.

    47. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People ignoring the elephant in the room of then and now: North Korea.

      NK fits all the "reasons" for going into Iraq, yet fails to qualify for Bush's preemptive war.

    48. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe so that you can prevent them from getting them? You know... take care of a problem before it gets unmanageable (like when they get the nukes).

    49. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      The French quit NATO central command and built their own nuclear missiles in the 50's and 60's precisely because they don't want to surrender to anyone. In particular, they don't want to depend on the US for their defense. The US has a history of on-again off-again isolationism. They helped in 1944, but they didn't get into the war until TWO YEARS after France was attacked.

      And if France had done something during the Sitzkrieg instead of sitting around and waiting to be attacked then they wouldn't have needed our intervention in the first place. Don't blame the United States for the fall of France -- blame the French. If they actually had decent leadership and a little balls they could have marched to Berlin and stopped WW2 before it had barely started when the Germans had all of their forces in Poland. Hell go back further then that -- if they had balls they wouldn't have backstabbed Czechoslovakia with the Munich Agreement.

      I'll grant you the fact that they were conquered is going to make them want nuclear weapons. But withdrawing from NATO had nothing to do with depending on the US for defense. That's just another example of unilateralism on the part of the French. We may take the heat for it these days -- but they invented it in the first place.

      Incidentally, France is the only large country that has never been at war with the US. It sure isn't going to start now.

      We've never actually been at war with the Russians I'd point out. And if France qualifies as a "Large Country" (what's your basis for that? Population? Security council vote?) then I'd also point out that we've never been at war with Australia, Poland, Brazil, or Argentina. And those are just the countries that I would qualify as being "large" that I can think of off the top of my head.

      Nice slam directed at the US though. Makes us seem like a warlike state to anyone who can't be bothered to crack open a history book.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    50. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      In the nuclear age, having the most powerful military in the world is like being the best boxer in a gunfight.

      Well then I guess it's fortunate we have one of the largest nuclear arsenals (if not the largest) on the planet then. Woohoo. Fsck with us, we'll blow you off the map.

    51. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes us seem like a warlike state to anyone who can't be bothered to crack open a history book

      You're not a "warlike" state as you would certainly like to be. Truth is, you only attack weak little 3rd world countries, and even then you only do it when when they're already lying on the ground. To take on a (former) major world power such as Germany, you pussies first need half the world as allies.

      Americunts couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

    52. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've actually done a nice job supporting Bush's preemption policy, by claiming it would have been a good idea for France in the late 30s.

    53. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      July 28, 2004 Withdraws its surrender offer in embarassment when it realizes that the US just went around them and didn't even regard them as a threat.

    54. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by norite · · Score: 1

      That's probably because North Korea has (if not the biggest) one of the largest standing armies in the world...

      --
      -- Fuck Beta
    55. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by femmefatale27 · · Score: 1

      Well thats what happens when you have 'allies' like bush!

    56. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck with the world, get blown off the map yourself. It doesn't take the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons to turn your country into a miserable place to live. Dork.

    57. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that they pay $600 for a toilet seat? The government is not stupid.

      The charges are real enough. Do you realize how expensive it is to get custom toilet seats for the captive aliens being held in Area 51? I know I don't want to be the guy who casts the mold.

    58. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only troops which arrive in Berlin would probably be some cooks and engineers in a hummer who originally wanted to go to Paris but couldn't find it on a map.

    59. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by thorgil · · Score: 1

      If the court decides to hear the case that is... otherwise the fine stand.

      --
      Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
    60. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler

      No. At least Hitler had a plan. I don't think even Bush(or whoever tells him what to do) has any idea what will happen next.

    61. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by whittrash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined.

      CORRECTION: Once you include the cost for Iraq, the US military budget is greater than all the worlds military budgets combined. The USA=$399 Billion plus the $75 to $100 billion in Iraq is to be determined; versus the rest of the world with at $463 billion.

    62. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      in a R&D based environment like military spending 10x funding would mean >10x strength as some of the money i used to buy more, but also money is used in making equipment/weapons better

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    63. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      You've actually done a nice job supporting Bush's preemption policy, by claiming it would have been a good idea for France in the late 30s.

      In hindsight it would have been, now wouldn't it? Besides, the war would not have started if they had stood up to Hitler and refused to sign the Munich pact. In the 30s the French were several orders of magnitude more powerful then Germany in the military arena. Do you think Hitler would have been emboldened to do the things he did if they hadn't rolled over and let him?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    64. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by JDBrechtel · · Score: 1

      Yea, because right NOW all of Gates' money is under his mattress.

    65. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      That is why we are working on laser missile defense and shit like that, so when we invade europe they can't nuke us back

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    66. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could have marched to Berlin and stopped WW2 before it had barely started when the Germans had all of their forces in Poland. Hell go back further then that -- if they had balls they wouldn't have backstabbed Czechoslovakia with the Munich Agreement [yale.edu].

      You think Germany had to use all of its forces to invade Poland? Think again.

    67. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      To take on a (former) major world power such as Germany, you pussies first need half the world as allies.

      Really? We took in the World superpower in our War of Independence with no allies or outside support (the French didn't get involved until much later in the war -- though they did send "advisors") for several years. And guess what? We beat them if memory serves.

      Americunts couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

      Ask the British, Mexicans, Spanish, Germans and Japanese how well Americans fight. They have all been defeated by us at some point in history. With the exception of Mexico all of those countries were World powers when we took them on and with the exception of Germany (and to a lesser extent Japan -- although we bore the overwhelming majority of the war in the Pacific) we took them all on by ourselves.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    68. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the US doesn't have that much stuff that others don't, despite all the wasted money.

    69. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it's just a money sink and won't work, ain't it? And by the time you get it working (if ever), others will have it, too. So forget about that, GI Joe.

    70. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome. All that spending and so little in return.

      Can Bush really be such a total failure? Oh, I forgot, he secured some contracts for himself for the time when he's not in politics anymore.

    71. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to be the guy who cleans the alien toilets in Area 51.

    72. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Troll
      You think Germany had to use all of its forces to invade Poland? Think again.

      Yes, actually they did. The German military was not ready for war in 1939. Hitler promised his Generals that he wouldn't go to war until full rearmament had been completed (it would have been in 1946) but he couldn't wait. The Germans had to use something like 85% of their front-line forces to conquer Poland. The "myth" of the Blitzkrieg has the Germans overrunning Poland in a few days -- guess what? When they got to Warsaw it deteriorated into an old fashion artillery siege that took weeks to settle.

      Furthermore if you bothered to read military history you'd know that in 1939 the French had a stronger military then the Germans anyway. That's the French all by themselves -- not counting the other allied powers.

      So yes, if the French had showed a little balls and taken some initiative when the Germans attacked Poland WW2 would probably have been over in a year tops. History would certainly be very different. No holocost, no seven year World War with 56,000,000 deaths, no conquest of Eastern Europe by Stalin and probably no war in the Pacific either.

      But instead of actually doing something to help their allies (the Poles) the French declared war and then sat around and waited to be attacked. The French acted like complete cowards and humanity paid the price for it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    73. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seig Heil, unser Fuhrer!

    74. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Personally, I'd be surprised if the US could "win" a war with the EU.

      Assuming such a war didn't go nuclear, such a war would consist almost entirely of air and cruise-missile exchanges. Neither side has the naval capability to launch an invasion in strength without a friendly nearby base country to assemble in. The US carrier strength would be very quickly wiped out if they tried to use that as a strike platform, and the EU wouldn't have any reason to go out and engage them on the ocean.

      What would happen, however, is that the rather pathetic US air defense network would be easily broken apart allowing EU cruise missiles to penetrate and smash major infrastructure at will. By contrast, the extremely good air defense in Europe (a legacy of the cold war) would put up a good job at stopping air raids, and even deter the stealth aircraft.

      Remember: Iraq, in the second Gulf War, had better air defences than the US. The US has never needed air defences, and only has them around point locations.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    75. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by slug359 · · Score: 1

      The fact you were ~3000 miles away in an age before the jet engine helped quite a bit...

    76. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      So the USA won WWI and WWII all by itself uh? Fancy that.

    77. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      > But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?

      Hitler didn't want to do that ('invade the world, making it into one country').

      You've watched too many SF/ horror films, and don't know your history.

      He wanted 'lebensraum' (room to live) and wanted expansion on the Eastern front, appeasement on the Western Front, non-aggression pacts with others, to exterminate 'races' he considered 'impure', but did NOT want to 'invade the world, making it one country'

    78. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Hitler should have been stopped the minute he invaded another country. Not before.

    79. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And guess what? We beat them if memory serves.

      Because the French helped you. No denying that. That's just how it went. Anyway, I'm not talking about what America was back then, I'm talking about today's America. A nation of uneducated, brainwashed tools who have long abandoned the high ideals of the country's founders. When you go to war with someone today, it's just as I described.

      Ask the British, Mexicans, Spanish, Germans and Japanese how well Americans fight.

      They fight shitty and are the world leaders in friendly fire. Everyone knows that. What the FUCK makes you think Americans can fight?

    80. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      The fact you were ~3000 miles away in an age before the jet engine helped quite a bit...

      Yeah it wouldn't have anything at all to do with our leadership and skill on the battlefield. We were just lucky. That must be it.

      That must explain why every other part of the British empire collapsed shortly after our War of Independence -- the Brits couldn't hold onto their empire because they didn't have Jets.... err wait no that's not right the empire actually lasted until the 20th century and the United States was one of the few nations that ever defeated the Brits during their hay day.

      Nice cheap shot to belittle the accomplishments of America though. Did it take you all week to think that one up?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    81. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Poland had more allies besides France who didn't do a thing either. In fact, no one did a single thing to help the Poles.

    82. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? We took in the World superpower in our War of Independence with no allies or outside support (the French didn't get involved until much later in the war -- though they did send "advisors") for several years. And guess what? We beat them if memory serves.

      That's pretty misleading. Regardless of how much help the French may have been giving directly to the Americans, the truth is that the British were fighting the French and that their battles against the French were far more important to them, and got a lot more of their attention, than anything happening in America.

    83. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Germans had to use something like 85% of their front-line forces

      Talk about imaginary numbers here...

    84. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Anyway, I'm not talking about what America was back then, I'm talking about today's America. A nation of uneducated, brainwashed tools who have long abandoned the high ideals of the country's founders

      Umm, fuck you. Let me state that clearly so you don't misunderstand me: Fuck you. Uneducated brainwashed tools? Fuck you. Abandoned the ideals of our founders? Fuck you. Why don't you state some examples instead of spewing your hate filled rhetoric.

      They fight shitty and are the world leaders in friendly fire. Everyone knows that. What the FUCK makes you think Americans can fight?

      The British fight shitty and are the World leaders in friendly fire? Says who? They managed to keep quite the empire for awhile there. Ditto for the Spanish. And what makes me think Americans can fight? Perhaps you should research our military history and talk to the people we've fought against and ask them how well Americans can fight. We aren't a warlike people but we do know how to fight.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    85. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who gives a rat's ass about the us-ass-kissing, car stealing piss-poor poles anyway? it's a pity that these subhumans are going to join the EU

    86. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by AnalogDog · · Score: 1

      You forgot one significant date: June 19, 2004- Fine Paid. Bill Gates spanked for being a bad boy. Linux based machines record the whole spanking for posterity.

    87. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, fuck you. Let me state that clearly so you don't misunderstand me: Fuck you. Uneducated brainwashed tools? Fuck you. Abandoned the ideals of our founders? Fuck you. Why don't you state some examples instead of spewing your hate filled rhetoric.

      Fuck yourself, lowly oil whore. No wait. Fuck yourself, lowly tool of the oil whores.

      The British fight shitty and are the World leaders in friendly fire? Says who?

      No one.

      And what makes me think Americans can fight? Perhaps you should research our military history and talk to the people we've fought against and ask them how well Americans can fight.

      Your soldiers always were cheap. Ask any of your former allies of enemies.

    88. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Ozan · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't reading stuff about Microsoft at /. for more than a few
      minutes give you the clue that pouring obnoxiously much money at
      something doesn't necessarily make it superior?

    89. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it wouldn't have anything at all to do with our leadership and skill on the battlefield.

      Certainly not, as both are nonexistent.

    90. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Talk about imaginary numbers here...

      Really? Why don't you open a history book sometime. In any case if the Germans were all-powerful why didn't they attack France and Poland at the same time?

      The simple fact of the matter is the Germans left a handful of divisions in the West to guard against an attack from the Allies and charged into Poland. The allies could have attacked them. I'm not saying they would have taken Berlin (though it's a possibility) but anything would have been better then sitting around waiting to be attacked while giving the Germans a free hand to gut Poland. You don't a war by having a great defense.

      I maintain that the French were cowards and the German myth of invisibility is just that. Feel free to prove me wrong.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    91. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer the old joke about US military policy; having been late for two world wars they're trying their hardest to be first in at the next one.

    92. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by slug359 · · Score: 1

      Yeah it wouldn't have anything at all to do with our leadership and skill on the battlefield.
      Sarcasm is a poor substitute for knowledge.
      The French leadership and skill caused the most problems for the British if I remember correctly (such as the Battle of the Chesapeake and Battle of Yorktown, both led by the French).

      That must explain why every other part of the British empire collapsed shortly after our War of Independence -- the Brits couldn't hold onto their empire because they didn't have Jets.... err wait no that's not right the empire actually lasted until the 20th century and the United States was one of the few nations that ever defeated the Brits during their hay day.
      World Wars I and II caused the collapse of our empire.

      Nice cheap shot to belittle the accomplishments of America though. Did it take you all week to think that one up?
      Sigh.

      For reference (after reading the first entry in your journal), posts like these bring out the worst of anti-Americanism in most people.

    93. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask any of your former allies of enemies.

      Sorry bout that, should have been an "or".

    94. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Fuck yourself, lowly oil whore. No wait. Fuck yourself, lowly tool of the oil whores.

      Oil whore? That's a new one. Think that one up yourself did you?

      Your soldiers always were cheap. Ask any of your former allies of enemies.

      If cheap == "always victorious" then yes I guess our soldiers are cheap. In any case if Americans fight so badly why did you need us to bail your sorry ass out of WW1 and WW2? Why did you need us to defend you from the Russians for 50 years? Couldn't handle it yourselves?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    95. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down dude, it's some comment on some website.

      'They fight shitty and are the world leaders in friendly fire. Everyone knows that. What the FUCK makes you think Americans can fight?'

      The British fight shitty and are the World leaders in friendly fire? Says who? They managed to keep quite the empire for awhile there. Ditto for the Spanish.

      I'm not certain, but I think he was referring to just the Americans here...

      Perhaps you should research our military history and talk to the people we've fought against and ask them how well Americans can fight. Vietnam?

    96. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I doesn't matter since both parties can be bought with money.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    97. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      The French leadership and skill caused the most problems for the British if I remember correctly (such as the Battle of the Chesapeake and Battle of Yorktown, both led by the French).

      Yorktown wasn't led by the French. Yorktown was led by George Washington. The French blockaded Cornwallis' escape to the sea after defeating the British Navy. This forced his surrender by the land battle was led by American forces.

      In any case how about Saratoga and Trenton? Why is it so hard for you to admit the accomplishments of my country? I'd happily admit yours -- the Battle of Britain being my personal favorite.

      World Wars I and II caused the collapse of our empire.

      That was sarcasm on my part because you stated that "Being 3,000 miles away before the Jet Engine certainly helped you". I was pointing out that the Brits managed to hold the rest of their empire just fine without Jets.

      posts like these bring out the worst of anti-Americanism in most people.

      Actually if you actually read my posts I was responding to someone else's bullshit anti-American argument. But go ahead and add me to your foes list (as you seem to have done) so you can ignore me. Why have an intelligent debate that might change your opinions when you can just silence someone you don't agree with?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    98. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Vietnam?

      Umm, we won the battles in Vietnam. Granted we lost the war (for political reasons) but we won the battles. Care to point me towards a major battle that we lost in Vietnam?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    99. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much that, but the fact they already have "WMD" -- NK could level Seoul with conventional artillery in a couple hours.

    100. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    101. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Noren · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, "total failure" isn't the correct wording! Surely you meant to say he is a "miserable failure."

    102. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by chialea · · Score: 1

      >Care to point me towards a major battle that we lost in Vietnam?

      Tet offensive?

      Lea

    103. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Talence · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kind of funny when people have a major discussion on history where they personalize the complicated actions of groups comprising millions of people into simple "us" and "you" terms. Even more amusing when both sides try to convince eachother that the other is wrong, even though they each cannot change the historical facts. Looking at those facts though, neither side is that innocent anyway.

      Even if so-and-so did something really wrong decades ago, how does that apply to any of us living today anyway? Most Americans disagree on tons of issues... and the same applies to Europeans. Generalizing the will of either "side" into what dumb politicians say is unfair to both.

      How about we just talk about our common interests like computers instead of showing too much misplaced nationalistic pride?

      --
      I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
    104. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?

      I present to you: Godwin's law.

    105. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stealth techology doesn't even work. Modern detections systems see 'stealth' bombers like any other plane. You are not hiding something that weighs 25 tonnes in mid-air. The only reason stealth technologies were put into work was because of corporate contract grabbing with lobbying, etc.

    106. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apprends l'orthographe de propre ta langue, fils de pute!

    107. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by chialea · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There are certainly quite a few wars that the US has lost as well. Several incursions against Mexico (rather slaughter-happy ones) turned out badly, an attack on the USSR which managed to piss them off quite thoroughly, several attacks on Canada (which was at the time a British property), North Korea, and so on and so forth. This is (of course) not counting the minor covert operations, though many of them did not fare well either.

      Of course, military history is not my area of specialty, but I thought I might as well point out that there are certainly two sides to this argument.

      On that note, I'm frankly amazed by the anti-French military jokes. The French have won some amazing victories, and been enormously powerful militarily. Remember Napolean (who was technically Corsican, but no matter)?

      Lea

    108. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No France and Britian FAILED to win WWI and WWII without US intervention. In WWI, France and Britian had fought Germany to a stalemate. Had the US not joined on the Allied side (they could have just as well joined with Germany) and with Russia's withdrawal from the war, Germany and her allies could have forced a different outcome. As to WWII, France fell almost as fast as Poland (some would rightly argue the Poles put up a better fight!). And without US aid prior to entering WWII Britian would have fallen to Germany due to a total lack of local resources and the loss of the majority of it's Merchant Navy to U-boat attacks.

    109. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Tet offensive?

      North Vietnamese/Vietcong losses: around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success.
      American/South Vietnamese losses: 3,900 killed (1,100 were Americans). This was the source for those figures.

      The Tet offensive was a disaster for the North. It gutted the Vietcong (they ceased to exist as a viable military force afterwards) and cost the North Vietnamese army tens of thousands of lives for little or no gain.

      It was a victory in the propaganda war because our politicians played into their hands by lying to the American public but as far as the military side goes it was a crushing defeat for the communists. I'm not going to debate the political side of the war but I still maintain we won the battles.

      Americans do know how to fight.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    110. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil whore? That's a new one. Think that one up yourself did you?

      No, that's an old one.

      If cheap == "always victorious" then yes I guess our soldiers are cheap.

      No. Cheap = worthless mass produced crap. Just like many of the products which come from the US.

      In any case if Americans fight so badly why did you need us to bail your sorry ass out of WW1 and WW2?

      Who says I'm not Japanese or German? Moron.

    111. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by chialea · · Score: 1

      Based on their experience of war from not-so-long below, the French acted quite intelligently. The Maginot Line was not quite up to the whole tank thing, but wasn't a bad idea in the grander scheme of things.

      Lea

    112. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to debate the political side of the war but I still maintain we won the battles. Americans do know how to fight.

      You fought against a bunch of poorly equipped guys in the jungle who didn't even have one tenth of your technology (the usual US enemy). You still managed to get so frustrated that you had to kill lots of innocent children and women in the process. Way to go, super fighters and liberators.

      Super pussies, that's what you are. Now shut up and continue masturbating to your military history books, you failure.

    113. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There are certainly quite a few wars that the US has lost as well. Several incursions against Mexico (rather slaughter-happy ones) turned out badly, , , , and so on and so forth.

      What incursions against Mexico turned out badly? Care to provide any references?

      an attack on the USSR which managed to piss them off quite thoroughly

      When did we attack the USSR? There was a small intervention in Vladivostok during the Russian civil war by the US plus another one outside of Archangel that was a combined intervention by the Allies (France, UK and US). The purpose of these interventions was to try and oppose the Bolsheviks and bring the Russians back into WW1 against the Germans. We never attacked Russia -- certainly not the USSR since it didn't exist at this time.

      several attacks on Canada (which was at the time a British property)

      The attacks on Canada during the War of 1812 were half-hearted -- as were the Canadian/British counterattacks on American cities. There weren't very many decisive battles on either side during that war. In any case we didn't start that war -- the British did by seizing and harassing our shipping on the high seas.

      North Korea

      I am somewhat puzzled that you include North Korea in your list of "quite a few wars that the US has lost". How did we lose the Korean war? We completely defeated North Korea -- they ceased to exist as a military force. The Chinese intervened and drove us back to the 38th. The war then became a stalemate. Millions of Chinese and North Koreans died vs about 50,000 Americans. How is that a defeat?

      Of course, military history is not my area of specialty, but I thought I might as well point out that there are certainly two sides to this argument.

      Obviously not since I can't think of "quite a few wars" that the US has lost. We did lose Vietnam but we lost it in the political sense -- not the military one.

      The French have won some amazing victories, and been enormously powerful militarily. Remember Napolean (who was technically Corsican, but no matter)?

      Your joking right? "Remember Napoleon"? That's like saying "Remember Hitler". Both won amazing successes but were eventually defeated by a combination of arrogance and superior forces arrayed against them. I don't think Napoleon deserves any credit -- he led the French to ruin.

      Besides, what jokes did I use? I merely pointed out the fact that the French cowardly sat around and waited for the Germans to attack. The French mindset was to defend themselves to victory. Hint: It doesn't work.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    114. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, Sir, have just made the most insightful post here in a long time.

    115. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      Your definition of "winning battles" is too narrow. You are simply talking about body count and territory gained and lost. The real point of a war is to eliminate your opponents will to war. Both Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu stated this. The Tet offensive while a victory in your narrow terms, was a complete psychological defeat for us. Why? The government essentially lied before stating the VC could not launch a major offensive and they were finished. The Tet offensive destroyed the government's credibility and the public's tenous will to fight. Not debating the political side of war is silly as war is politics by other means. We won most of the battles in Vietnam - but we lost the war. The NVC lost over 2 Mil men in the war. We lost 56,000 and our will to fight. Ho Chi Minh was once quoted as saying,"If you kill ten of us for every one of you will kill, it is you who will get tired." The quote may be off but that's the basics.

    116. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      You fought against a bunch of poorly equipped guys in the jungle who didn't even have one tenth of your technology (the usual US enemy).

      Really? Those poorly equipped guys in the jungle managed to defeat the Japanese, the French and later the Chinese. There's little the Vietnamese have to learn about fighting -- they did it non-stop for about 40 years. Give them some credit. And give us some credit for defeating them on the battlefield. If they were so easy to beat why couldn't the French or the Chinese do it?

      You still managed to get so frustrated that you had to kill lots of innocent children and women in the process.

      Hint: Innocent people die in war. Why aren't you pointing out the women and children killed by the North Vietnamese themselves -- or the women and children killed by the French when they tried to reconquer Indo-China after WW2.

      Super pussies, that's what you are.

      Says the Anonymous Coward.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    117. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, cool. You noticed that they have placed Michael Moore as #1 search result now?

    118. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by crotherm · · Score: 1

      dude.. stop feeding the trolls...

      btw.. you are right in your posts. These other folks are just confused....

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    119. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by shaitand · · Score: 1, Informative

      While I'd have to agree concerning the US air defense, it's rather pathetic. You are quite mistaken about he naval power.

      At all times the US literally has EVERY point on the globe within strike range from it's ships. We have carriers out the arse, they aren't something you can readily dismiss, the US has almost as much in naval air power as it's entire airforce.

      As for friendly airbases... you do realize that "sending peacekeepers and helping to establish a democratic government" translates to haha suckers we've conquered another territory and come out smelling like roses. When you bear that in mind and take a look at the globe you'll quickly realize we've "aided" very very strategic positions throughout asia and the middleeast particularly.

      Now I realize your European missles don't go very far very accurately, but with current NAVAL missle technology here in the US we can hit within 50ft anywhere in europe from 1/3rd of the way across the globe. The land launched missles can go farther yet. We can take out your bases sitting back in asia with little or no trouble. The other thing to consider is that for quite some time the bulk of US naval (actual ship I mean) investment has been in subs. We have hundreds of them scouring the oceans (all of them) at all times ready to strike.

      There is no such thing as a US vessel that isn't stocked to carry on at sea for less than 2yrs with rationing in an emegency situation and subs go for 2yrs routinely without stopping to port and thats without wartime rations.

      Don't be a fool on this topic, our naval power is our military power. It's the only branch of our military which legally can be maintained indefinately in time of peace and those writting the budget know it. As a result the navy has it's own navy, air force (carriers, angels, stealths, among others), and army (seals, marines).

      Our special forces, particularly the seals, are the most elite units in the world to top it all off, as demonstrated in the gulf war when iraq lost kuwait entirely thanks to a single seal team taking out their communications.

      Quite frankly I find my country to be the greediest, most hypocritical, corrupt, and evil nation in the world... but make no mistake, we got where we are today by having really damn big guns. (That and the fact that nobody would attack us on the simple merit of us being the only nation to use nukes in combat and that after the fact we armed a few hundred submarines with them and positioned them so they can nuke any point in the world repeatedly within a few minutes).

    120. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them some credit. And give us some credit for defeating them on the battlefield.

      That's right. THEY can fight. And I give you credit for using superior technology to fry them from above, so that you don't have to fight them directly. Great job, you heroes. In the end, they beat you anyway. And they deserved it.

      Hint: Innocent people die in war. Why aren't you pointing out the women and children killed by the North Vietnamese themselves -- or the women and children killed by the French when they tried to reconquer Indo-China after WW2.

      Because we're talking about the US. And "you" went into those little towns, burned down all the huts, killed the children and killed/raped the women. See how heroic you were. The US pussy wannabe corps.

    121. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Tuga · · Score: 1

      we took them all on by ourselves on this statement alone tells me alot about how much knowledge you have of the WW2 in the pacific Cheerz

    122. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I just want to remind you that at that point in time (1939-40, when Poland was invaded and Hitler consolidated), neither the UK or the USA for that matter did anything to stop Hitler. Yes France should have invaded (easy to say with 20/20 hindsight) but so should have the UK, at least.

      The USA were the biggest cowards as well at the time. `It was not their problem'. 75% of the opinion in the US wanted no part of what was happening in Europe (who cares? they were saying). The US only got involved when they got attacked in one of their remote bases, and only through FDR's careful manipulation of the opinion.

      And the USA did not get involved in Europe out of the goodness of their heart. Had they not, Europe would now be either 100% German and fascist or 100% Russian and still communist. In spite of the current minor diplomatic difficulties we have now, the USA thought at the time it would be far, far easier to continue to deal with Western-style, enfeebled democracies rather than another antagonistic superblock with even more resources than their own, and they were right.

      Finally it's a lot easier for old men in power in remote countries with a lot of young population that was never severely affected to send them to battle with good materiel, as was the case in the US, than it is for old men in power who have seen the effect of war themselves to send a severly affected by a recent war, not so young, not so well equipped army into slaughter as was the case in Europe.

      If John Kerry gets elected, I suspect (and I hope) he will be less eager to send young Americans to die overseas for dubious reasons than the current president, who himself was never involved in battle.

    123. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's the lack of HydroCarbons.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    124. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did lose Vietnam but we lost it in the political sense -- not the military one

      You lost in the military sense. You weren't able to accomplish anything there except shooting innocent people, then the country just puked you out. You FAILED IT.

    125. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Tuga · · Score: 1

      The government is not stupid Which goverment are we talking about here?? I'm confused Cheerz

    126. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Ying+Hu · · Score: 1

      Actually, we briefly sent troops into northern Russia during the civil war in Russia after WWI. That's why the Russian Communists were so distrustful of us.

    127. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because attacking poland was a political move as a part of the greater germany movement. it facilitated and reaffirmed hitler/nazis as the power/future leadership of germany. france wasn't an important target at that time.

      now, yes, while germany was engaged in the east the french could have attacked germany. however, to say that they *should* have and are cowards because they didn't is to ignore the historical setting of the time and to ignore the fact that it wasn't a frenchman who said, "we have peace in our time."

      perhaps you should learn some history as well.

    128. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US could only win by killing everyone in europe. we might spend the most and have a lot of highly trained troops, but you still need grunt troop to occupy and hold land. we're stretched pretty thin just trying to occupy Iraq.

      What would happen if we tried to occupy Europe?

    129. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by k_head · · Score: 1

      They also both built concentration camps. Hitler did provide walls and and roof and beds for his prisoners though. Bush just put them in chain link cages and let them sleep on the dirt.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    130. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it a bit sad that the US spends so much on defence, and yet has a pretty small healthcare system?

    131. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some more info on Bush's ideals and vision for 'world leadership': http://www.newamericancentury.org/.

    132. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Umm, fuck you. Let me state that clearly so you don't misunderstand me .....

      > We aren't a warlike people

      Haha hahhahahaha

      That sounds so convincing alltogether.
      I hope you are not representative for the average American.

      The post that you replied to was stupid, agreed, but you really believe acting stupid is a way to respond to that?

    133. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Yes, but your naval power was designed initially to secure the Atlantic to make sure that supply convoys to Europe can get through. The carrier was never designed to be the sole base of support for staging strikes against a major power, and wouldn't succeed.

      Naval aircraft cannot compete against land-based aircraft of similar capability; they don't have the fuel and they are not as maneuverable. That's why finding airbases is so important for US activities; that's why the US put so much effort into getting Turkey to agree to allow the use of bases against Iraq.

      Carriers are very powerful, but they don't win. That's why the US spends so much money on bases in Guam and Diego Garcia (sp?). If a carrier group were to tangle with a large land-based modern airforce like the British or the French, you'd see a lot of sailors swimming shortly afterwards. Your own USAF proves this against the Navy on a regular basis.

      Don't be so cocky about your nukes, either. France and Britain both have nuclear capability, and the Germans sure as hell know how. Both France and Britain have ICBMs also, and Britain helped you develop your Trident program.

      Finally: your special forces? They're good, but they're not the "most elite units". That title almost certainly goes to the British SAS or the French special forces (it used to go to the Russian Spetnaz, but times have changed). The British and Australian SAS both have better service records in Iraq at the moment than the US forces, as well (on a per-capita basis).

      Sure, the US is the biggest baddest military in the entire world. But it's not geared up to take on a major power, not anymore. And even when it was, during the cold war, it required the use of forward bases in Europe to be of any help.

      If the Saudis and the Turks had said "No" to the US, then Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, and no amount of US posturing would have changed that. This is why the US has been so easy on the Saudis, despite their support for terrorism.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    134. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cuntface your turd world country got its independance with French military help.

    135. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by quasimodal · · Score: 1

      Sounds fitting for the warmongers in the whitehouse.

      And all these "conservatives" claim they're the patriots? Conservatives were called Tories during the American Revolution. And my family wasn't on that side.

      --
      Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
    136. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fat suburban americunt PUSSY, you've never been in a fight in your life.

    137. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, too lazy to long in, but..
      The United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

      American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as large as the next three--Japan, Germany and Britain--put together. With 5 percent of the world's population, this one country accounts for 43 percent of the world's economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development.

      If you look at the indicators of future growth, all are favorable for America. It is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally than any other part of the world. It is conceivable that America's lead, especially over an aging and sclerotic Europe, will actually increase over the next two decades.

    138. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Most people would argue that if you did not achieve the goals of a war, you lost.

      Fact: Despite overwhelming military power, the USA was still kicked out of Vietnam and failed to prevent it from becoming Communistic.

      Fact: No united Korea despite initial military victory.

      Will we see the same in Iraq? I think few peopel doubted that Saddam would fall if the USA put itself to it. Bringing stability and buildign a viable country? I think they better start looking at and learning from the lessons the USSR learned in Afghanistan if they are hoping to win that one at least.

      I was against the war because it was started on false arguments and with disregard for international law. That said, it is a good thing that Saddam is gone, but only if Iraq can be turned into a viable place to live for its population. The USA alone is simply not able to do that, it will need the neighbours of Iraq first of all, and will need the support from the rest of the world for it to succeed. How wise it would be to transfer the whole thing to the U.N.

      Pulling out now would be the worst possible thign to do.

    139. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Hint: Innocent people die in war. Why aren't you pointing out the women and children killed by the
      > North Vietnamese themselves

      Because 2 wrongs don't make a right. The USA claims it considers itself better then others when it comes to things like liberty, human rights and so on. There is ONE WAY ONLY to convince peopel of that, KEEP TO IT.

      What the vietnamese did is simply not an argument in that whatsoever.

      > or the women and children killed by the French when they tried to reconquer Indo-China after WW2.

      I am not very aware of what the French did, but the country I am from myself (the Netherlands) has a not so nice bit of history itself there (trying to keep Indonesia within our kingdom).

      The thing is this. When I was at elementary school, I learned about that. I learned also that what my country did there was morally wrong.

      That is a view supported by a majority of peopel that live here.

      The problem is that when you point out to an American that they have been involved in such things as well as a response to their claim of moral high ground, a large majority to my experience will defend itself by marginalizing it and throwing acusations back.

      That is not a way to discuss anything really. I wonder, do schools overthere give classes in things like debating?

    140. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. This best boxer at the gunfight is also the only one that happens to own any guns. Take your chances with the boxing, where numbers might help, but if things get too hard the boxer pulls out the guns...

      Last I checked Russia was the only country with a working nuke program. (Though I'm not sure if they have kept it maintained) Europe has people smart enough to do it, and all the supplies, but it still takes time to turn know how into something that works.

      Still, a war between the US and Europe is unlikly at that time. I'd like to keep it that way, I hope you would too.

    141. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are 16. You need to read more then the made up history in American history books to understand anything that happened in the world wars. Do not take your history lessons from U-571, Enemy at the Gates or any other hollywood movie, because they all lie to you, just like your history books.

    142. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bub, I've read your comments and there's nothing intelligent about them. The only reason you're not a British colony is because the Brits were busy with the French, and the Atlantic ocean is a big ocean. That's all, nothing more.

    143. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by k_head · · Score: 1

      Charles Krauthammer a well known neocon was preaching to the amen choir at fox TV last week. During their "aren't all special because we hate democrats" love in he suggested that we park an aricraft carrier off the coast of france to persuade them to go along with us.

      They all giggled like teenage girls at a sleepover but you could tell he was deadly serious. These people have no boundries. They would bomb france if they felt it would get them something they wanted.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    144. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > And if France had done something during the Sitzkrieg instead of sitting around and waiting to be attacked then they wouldn't have needed our intervention in the first place.

      THey mostly suffered from bad strategical decisions and wrong employment of their equipment, not so much from how defensive/offensive they were.

      Part of their problem was the strict neutrality of Belgium, and part of the defense plan would be to basicly overtake Belgium at the first sign of a German attack on France (which would come through Belgium for sure).

      They never counted on the speed and power of a well deployed motorized and armoured invader.

      That had nothing whatsoever to do with being pasive, defensive or whatever other claims are often amde, but with leaders havign their minds set on strategies from decades ago. Their biggest failure undoubtedly the wrong deployment of tanks (as part of their infantery instead of in highly mobile tank units) and insuffisient airpower for absolute air superiority, and last but not least, failign to motivate their army to actually fight.

      Regardless, the French didn't last long, and one could argue that in relative terms, Poland, THe Netherlands and Belgium put up a lot more of a fight.

      Arguing however that that defeat underlines the validity of the offensive policy of the current USA government is based on gross misrepresentation of history.

    145. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please understand how unbelievibly far Europe was to most Americans during the 40's & how much we didn't want to get back into another "Great War" 2000 miles away. *That we had very little (nothing to your average joe) to do with*.

      Europe could have just as well been Mars to most people back then.

      This is probably going to sound trollish but, most Americans still have the mindset that "These people can't take care of themselves, so we have to do it for them." They've been given little reason to think otherwise.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    146. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you lost Vietnam because you were to afriad to do what the Vietnamese were willing to do to beat you. They were fighting for their home, you were fighting for.. wait... what were you fighting for there? Control of the drug trade? Is there oil under there? What, next you'll tell me it was a tie. Fucktard.

    147. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by rixkix · · Score: 1

      Keep thinking that, and nobody gets mad until we have one working. Thank you:)

    148. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't. Even the Germans said so.. The Brits always do the same thing.. They hide in their trenches. The Americans always do the same thing.. they attempt to walk in behind a wall of tanks. The russians only had 1 gun for every 3 soldiers. Not much to be afraid of there. The only ones they feared in WW2 were the Canadians.. because they never knew what they were going to do.

    149. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      In 1940 the French still had a bigger army then Germany, with better weapons.
      They were clueless with regards to properly employing their army. Had they tried to March on Berlin, I give them very little chance to have reached it despite Germany being busy with Poland at that time. The simple reason was that Germany was a few decades ahead in military thinking and despite lacking manpower and material, had a much better idea about how to use their army, oh, and it was trained a lot better.

      It did take the allies soem 2 years to catchup.

      Should they have attacked? yes, they (among others) had guaranteed the integrity of Poland. But it would have taken a lot mroe then that to have gotten a different outcome by the end of 1940.

      Had they done something in 1936 or thereabout, it could have gone differently. The problem is that few knew what was going on, and only some suspected it, and suspicion is seldom enough to act violently, you are going to make waay more innocent victims then you prevent that way.

    150. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > You don't a war by having a great

      A war, incidentely also agains germany, just some 25 years earlier tought them that that is exactly how you win a war.

      Lesson: You can learn from the past, and in ways it repeats itself, just not in the way YOU think.

    151. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hitler and Germany should never have been given reason to go to war, but unjust sanctions led to economic ruin, and war was the only way seen to bring the country out of the shit they were in. Hitler being an unbalanced genius only the fuel on the fire, but no matter who was in Hitlers place, they were forced to go to war (maybe not burn the jews as scapegoats, but hey.. psychos will be psychos.) It turns out people did not learn from Hitler. We learned to not appease a dictator, but we didn;t learn to not create one.

    152. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      Maybe I could have picked a better example. Napoleon?

      Plus, I was suggesting that you shouldn't assume that he has the motive/worldview that the conquerors have. The way you wrote your response implies that you didn't even read it.

      I don't think picking a "loaded" example makes my argument fallacious. It just means that I could have picked an example that wouldn't have caused the discussion to be sidetracked into something entirely different. I was talking about the power aspect, not the violence aspect.

    153. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah it wouldn't have anything at all to do with our leadership and skill on the battlefield.

      Only one who knows nothing of war could think that these things were actually that important in comparison to the logistical challenge that the Atlantic posed for the British.

    154. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      My friend, you are mistaken. France and the UK had guaranteed that they would protect the integrity of Poland, and did declare war as a result of the Polish attack.

      When the German attack in the west is said to be withotu declaration of war, that concerns Belgium and the Netherlands. France and Germany were strictly spoken already at war.

      So yes, they should have attacked, but its very doubtfull that it would have mattered much.

    155. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Umm, fuck you. Let me state that clearly so you don't misunderstand me: Fuck you. Uneducated brainwashed tools? Fuck you. Abandoned the ideals of our founders? Fuck you. Why don't you state some examples instead of spewing your hate filled rhetoric.

      I think you just provided the example you're asking for.

    156. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Astreja · · Score: 1

      Entirely likely, sad to say.

      I, myself, am grateful to be here at all. My dad (Canadian radio operator who participated in D-Day), narrowly missed becoming 'collateral damage' somewhere in Normandy. He had the unpleasant task of telling the USAF bombers to stop dropping armament on the front-line Allied tanks.

      And this was 1944. George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it."

      Tip of the Day: If you ever find yourself in a war (or wargames) zone, avoid using the word "repeat" on your celphone or other wireless-audio device. The safe term is "Say again."

      Astreja

    157. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Aside from the first French Empire, the second French Empire, France under Louis XIV, Napoleon, etc.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    158. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, I watched The Patriot, and it clearly shows that the Usonians won because they only wanted to protect their children, and the British were savage morons.

    159. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by pilkul · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Worried yet?

      Nope. These are hardly Hitler's worst evils. Any way you spin it, comparing Bush with Hitler is obviously preposterous. It should only take a few minutes of thought and use of common knowledge to notice the gigantic differences between the two men. I'm sure you're smart and educated enough to know them already, but just aren't bothering to seriously think about the issue. I would be insulting your intelligence if I took the time to enumerate them for you. I encourage you to just think of 5 ways in which Hitler is worse than Bush. After this, can you really come back after that and tell me again that they're comparable?

      Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose Bush myself. But extreme comparisons like this only serve to discredit those who oppose Bush for sensible policy reasons.

    160. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They are both strongly homophobic.

      Actually, by some accounts there were a number of high ranking Nazis who were homosexual. Some even go so far as to suggest that Hitler himself might have been a closet homosexual.

      And for what it's worth, Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

    161. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by sjlumme · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but for all I know the European Court of Justice can base its decisions solely on some Charter of Rights. It's not very likely Microsoft will get anything out of that, since the Charter is (and rightfully so) mostly biased towards individual citizens and doesn't really extend much in the way of rights to corporations. Of course, there may be some "interesting" precedent somewhere, but it still seems like a meager basis for challenging an essentially administrative (rather than judicial) anti-trust decision.

    162. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by CommieOverlord · · Score: 4, Informative
      Last I checked Russia was the only country with a working nuke program

      Hmm...
      1. England - acknowledged nuclear power
      2. France - acknowledged nuclear power
      3. Russia - acknowledged nuclear power
      4. China - acknowledged nuclear power
      5. Israel - Nuclear armed, ~200 weapons
      6. India - Nuclear armed, ~100 weapons
      7. Pakistan - Nuclear armed, ~30-40 weapons


    163. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by sjlumme · · Score: 1

      You won't, for the same reason you won't invade China. It's bad for the US economy.

      Iraq was never a major customer for US exports, hell, they were mostly a major supplier of US imports (oil). By essentially colonizing them, you suddenly get a market for US exports (Haliburton), while at the same time the oil will keep flowing to the US just fine. Destroying some portion of the production infrastructure is not a problem, since Iraq's main asset is the oil itself rather than the pumps and pipes.

      The EU, like China, have a different kind of economic relationship to the US. There is intensive trade, both ways, in highly value-added products (computers, cars, whatnot). A war would put a sudden stop to that for at least its duration, but probably much longer, since the complicated and fragile infrastructure needed for the sort of economy on hand is very easily destroyed by warfare.

    164. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Shakrai says "maybe you should learn some history", he means "maybe you should read a US history book", which means he only cares about the US attitudes and opinions of world events. And we all know how much notice the US takes of other countries (unless it suits them to get involved).

    165. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, as this is Slashdot, and the conversation is generally offtopic, his insight will never receive the +5 mod it deserves.

    166. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you forget one thing my friend. Bush doesn't do this by himself. All of aids do most of the "Homeland security", and the money givers help guide them. Hitler did everything on his own, and then told everyone else what to do.

      At least Hitler didn't have a V.P. that was always in a disclosed location. ;-)

      --
      This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    167. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

      Just don't think all that money is going to the men and women in the military! Most of that is going right back into some contractors pocket! Think about it. Even though the military budget is getting bigger, they are still cutting the number of service people and still close bases to "save money".

      --
      This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    168. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it took hitler nearly 10 years to consolidate his power before he reached his full potential as a world villain.

      bush dived in the deep end...

    169. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They (france and britain) (not the USA though? hrmmm) declared war on germany the instant germany attack poland.

    170. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      >does invading two countries really make you conclude

      Seems to me that you forgot to count some other countries where Bush has sent US troops. Or intends to send them for that matter.

    171. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it only me or should US start to prioritize?

    172. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, we left the pissant colonies alone to go and give the french another in a long series of kickings. You win independence basically by default. Contemporary opinion was that no-one gave a shit about the rejects, criminals and women of loose virtue that had left for the barbarous and uncivilised conditions of the new world. Nothing much changes really.

    173. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by toopc · · Score: 1
      Technically it's not Bill's money, I was being facetious. I was just pointing how easy it is to hedge against currency fluctuation.

      As far as the fine is concerned, Microsoft's least worry is that the Euro will gain against the dollar during the appeals.

    174. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Last I checked Russia was the only country with a working nuke program.

      Check some other source than CNN from THIS century, or even sometime before 1960.

      Where have you been?

      Oh wait..

    175. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Isbiten · · Score: 1

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.

      Pastor Martin Niemoller

      --
      I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
    176. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear! ;)

    177. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this, couldn't Lindows change its name to Lwindos or Lindos or even better WinLows or WinLin...

      --
      When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    178. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Hindsight is always 20/20. Should France (and UK) have done differently before the WW2 and in the early days of WW2? Absolutely!

      Nice slam directed at the US though. Makes us seem like a warlike state to anyone who can't be bothered to crack open a history book.


      Since WW2, USA has invaded more countries than anyone else on this planet. So yes, you ARE "warlike".
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    179. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      Hitler should have been stopped by the germans themselves the minute he illegalized the communist and socialist party.

      Hitler should have been stopped by the germans themselves the minute they finished reading "Mein Kampf".

      Ah fuck, if they only had accepted him at Art University.

      --
      Free as in mason.
    180. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I maintain that the French were cowards and the German myth of invisibility is just that. Feel free to prove me wrong.


      Your arguments are based on hindsight, nothing more. We have had good 50 years to study the war, it's causes and reasons. So it's easy for us to say that "they should have done this instead of that". But back then it wasn't so obvious.

      Was France reluctant to go to war? Absolutely! And that does not mean that they were "cowards". Anyone who is eager to go to war, is someone who is as far away from the front-lines as possible. France had just lost ALOT of men fighting the Germans in WW1 (were they cowards then?), they had no desire to go through with it again. It's easy for you to say that "they should have fought more aggressively!", when it's not YOUR ass on the line. It's not YOUR sons and brothers who are going to do the fighting.

      Why didn't France attack? They (and rest of the world, excluding Germans) were still stuck in the WW1-era military-thinking. They believed in static defence-lines (Maginot-line), and that belief was ultimately their downfall.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    181. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who, the Chinese?

    182. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think even if you check a source from LAST century you'll find that there are other nuclear powers ;)

      Ever wonder how you get to become a permanent member of the UN security council?

    183. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Moraelin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, no offense intended to the US military, but... you may notice how even the first Iraq exercise wouldn't have been possible without having Saudi Arabia as a staging area. And Saudi Arabia isn't just a patch of sand. It's a country with good infrastructure, and a metric buttload of airports which it let the US use.

      And even then, it took how long to get enough troops and supplies there, before the US could launch the attack?

      Right.

      So basically if you extrapolate this to something the size of the EU or USA, you can see how neither is ever going to get enough troops over the Atlantic to tackle the other.

      Also note that the flow of troops and materials towards Iraq was not obstructed in any way. The supply airplanes didn't have to deal with enemy fighters. The ships didn't have to deal with enemy navies, subs and enemy airplanes launching missiles at them. In a hypothetical EU vs USA slug-fest, neither side would have that luxury. The USA would do its best to interdict any EU convoys, and viceversa.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    184. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by awol · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny. But does invading two countries really make you conclude that Bush wants to invade the world, making it into one country, like Hitler?



      I call "Godwin's law"


      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    185. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the German myth of invisibility is just that

      What is this German myth of invisibility you're talking about?

    186. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. England - acknowledged nuclear power"

      Just a nitpick, but England isn't an acknowledged nuclear power. It isn't even a recognised nation.
      What you meant to say was, "that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (heretofore known as the UK) are an acknowledged nuclear power".

      This is very important. When you yankees come and invade, I want you to kill the Welsh as well.

    187. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1

      You raise a valid point that any comparison between Bush and Hitler is exagerrating the problems with the bush Administration by a very large amount, and is simply trying to draw parallels in the most sensationalist method possible.
      But it's still raising some rather worrying things in my mind.

      I don't know what more worrying, that fact that people are trying to compare Bush with Hitler, or the fact that one or two of the parallels are scarily accurate.

      Personally I don't think Bush is anywhere near as dangerous as Hitler was. Or at least, not yet. (I'm not saying he will get worse, just that it's not an impossibility.)
      But some of Bush's policies are rather worrying. Hell I (and many others) thought so even before the "Hitler parallels". And just because comparing Bush to Hitler is going too far doesn't mean that the issues raised aren't disturbing.

      To be honest, my opinions haven't changed too much since a year ago. Getting rid of Saddam was necessary (my opinion, not a fact - and just 'cos I agree with the end doesn't mean I'm impressed with many of the means on any side). But... now Bush should take a very large step backwards or run the risk of being the next target.
      Global-scale politics is a dangerous game where the line between "right" and "wrong" is very fine (and often a matter of opinion).

      Tiggs
      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    188. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      No I'm not
      Don't be so stupid.

      And the people who moderated you interesting shouldn't be so stupid either.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    189. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      "So, it's not likely that we'll be invading Europe any time soon."

      Funnily enough I come to the same conclusion myself withou all the pissing contest about military budgets and who's got the biggest nuclear arsenal.

      Somedays I think that the majority of posters on Slashdot are seven years olds , sigh..., boys, I mean, girls would never be this stupid.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    190. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by olderchurch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he conveniently forgot the part the Russians took in the war. To make it easier for the parent I included a picture.

      --
      Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
    191. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India and Pakistan are acknowleged as having weapons. They didn't make any secret of their testing programs, thats for sure.

      Believe it or not, South Africa also had several warheads that they built themselves, but actually destroyed them and dismantled their weapons program in the late 80's.

    192. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our special forces, particularly the seals, are the most elite units in the world..

      That'll be the SAS and SBS then. The SEALS come to train with our guys, not the other way around.

      While we're on the subject, the French special forces have a neat trick for opening airplane doors. No one else knows how to do it.

    193. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well if thats all it takes then it would have been easy. If the U.S (And the U.K, and France and a few others) hadn't supplied Saddam with Chemical and Biological weapons in the 80's and early 90's we could have prevented him from getting them without needing a war and thousands of deaths.

    194. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by hemanman · · Score: 1

      Those wars were won by the huge american production machine, which is funny because these days that production machine is being outsourced to India or China.

      -H

    195. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined."

      Now if you take into consideration the EU's budget on Free healthcare on top of the military I am sure you get vastly different numbers.
      If I was you I would be ashamed to mention the astronomical amount of money the US spends on it's military when you have to pay to be seen by a doctor. I know I would.

    196. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

      What does nation mean? It has national sports teams which compete against welsh, & scottish national teams (at least this is how they're described normally). I agree that the parent shoudl have said "UK" or "Britain" but still, I don't really understand what nation means in this context. Not arguing with you - but I am confused.

    197. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happened. The USA killed more British troops in "friendly fire" than the Iraqis did on purpose.

    198. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that is a bit trollish at the end... it's not as if it was a country outside Europe being the offensive force during the wars.

    199. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      And, if all you can think about when someone encourages more aggression is "but what about the lives of our troops?", then you do not understand how a good offense is the best defense. Sometimes attacking, and taking some risks, ensures the safety of the entire nation.

      Because the French refused to risk the lives of their soldiers, they risked the lives of their civilians instead. It was a risk that did not pay off.

      If you, as a commander-in-chief, a general, or even an elected official within a legislative body act to send troops, drafted or otherwise, into a conflict, your troops will PRAISE you for doing so if the war is fought for the right reasons and is fought to a victorious conclusion. Can you imagine how popular a French politician might have been back in the day had he brought about the invasion of Germany and marched the French army straight to Berlin in 1940? Can you imagine how much his military and civilian population would have loved him(or her, perish the thought)?

      The way I see it, the French should have had every reason in the world to want to take the fight STRAIGHT to the Germans as soon as the opportunity presented itself(and it did, when Germany invaded Poland). Hind-sight my arse; revenge is sweet, and you can't tell me that there weren't at least some Frenchmen in those days that still remembered the Franco-Prussian War and who wanted a more decisive victory over the Germans than that which WWI provided.

    200. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has quite a a bit more military power than even all of the nations in the EU.

      Actually you are not keeping up with the score board. The combined EU armies are bigger than the US.

      Presumably worldwar 3 will be between EU and the US - unless the US actually get some intelligent politicians who stop interfering all over the world.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    201. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by bertboerland · · Score: 1

      Oooh, this all started way before

      2002, The US shows how the believe in world justice by taking on an act that allows the US to invade the netherlands.

      see hrw

      --
      -- for undocumented cisco commands, take a peek @ dotu
    202. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by funkydom · · Score: 1

      In any case if Americans fight so badly why did you need us to bail your sorry ass out of WW1 and WW2

      IIRC, WW2 ended when Japan surrendered, and this was partly due to the US dropping nuclear bombs, but mainly due to the fact that Russia declared war on Japan a few weeks later...

      So don't be thinking that the U.S. single handedly came along and saved the world, there were others involved in the end of the war too...

    203. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by escallywag · · Score: 1
      Abandoned the ideals of our founders?

      Not really because those "ideals" have been hypocritical populist bullshit since day one. A bunch of rich, white slaverowners stating "All men are free and equal", they must have had a lot of fun writng that...

      We aren't a warlike people

      That must be why the US has been continously involved in armed conflicts all over the world for at least the last 60 years.

    204. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those wars were won by the huge american production machine

      Yes, by producing huge amounts of movies telling themselves they'd won everything, and single handedly at that.

    205. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Because the French refused to risk the lives of their soldiers, they risked the lives of their civilians instead. It was a risk that did not pay off.


      In WW1 civians didn't usually get caught in the crossfire, the French had no reason to believe that things would be different this time around.

      Can you imagine how popular a French politician might have been back in the day had he brought about the invasion of Germany and marched the French army straight to Berlin in 1940?


      You make it sound like their line of thinking went something like this: "Hmmmm.... We have two alternatives: Either we attack immediately and utterly defeat the Germans while they are fighting the Poles. Or we sit here and just wait to be defeated". In reality it didn't quite work that way. If the French (or the British, they were there too, remember?) would have though that they would have won, they would have attacked.

      But, like I said, they were still stuck at WW1-era thinking. They saw Siegfried-line just waiting for them. They obviously thought that attacking the line would be a suicide (and it might have been)

      The way I see it, the French should have had every reason in the world to want to take the fight STRAIGHT to the Germans as soon as the opportunity presented itself


      Through the Siegfried-line? Memories of attacking entrenched enemy in fortified positions during WW1 was something that the French had NOT forgotten. Instead, they decided to let the Germans drain their power attacking the Maginot-line, but that plan failed when the Germans went through the BeNeLux. It might have worked though, French troops that manned the line were the last ones to surrender, even though they were surrounded and sustaining heavy point-blank fire. That shows how difficult invasion through the Siegfried (or Maginot)-line would have been.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    206. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      But that is a typical American mindset, I didn't say I agreed with it. What probably baffled us even more is Germany being a country inside Europe it makes more sense to an American to work together (50 states, a lot of them bigger than most countries in Europe & of course we didn't always work together with our civil war & all), and less sense to attack each other. The people of Europe have had *how* long to learn to live together & are just now starting to do it?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    207. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by mpe · · Score: 1

      July 13, 2004 Colin Powell declares the EU has "Weapons of mass destruction, without a doubt."

      July 14, 2004: Powell fired for telling the truth about the EU having WMDs :)

    208. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      you are confusing the European Court of Human Rights with the European Court of Justice.

      The ECHR hears cases on the European Charter of Human Rights. It's a creation of the Council of Europe, which is quite separate from the European Union.

      The ECJ is the court of the European Union and hears EC law cases referred to it by courts in EU member States.

    209. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the French had showed a little balls and taken some initiative when the Germans attacked Poland WW2 would probably have been over in a year tops. History would certainly be very different. No holocost, no seven year World War with 56,000,000 deaths, no conquest of Eastern Europe by Stalin and probably no war in the Pacific either.

      The French, British... everyone, even Americans were trying to come up with a diplomatic solution. Everyone, including Germany, were tired of war since the devastating WW1 was still in recent memory, but some in Germany wanted revenge because of the extremely harsh conditions imposed on them by the Versailles peace treaty -- since then an example on how not to settle past wars. And funny how Poland's fate was actually sealed in a secret pre-war treaty in which Hitler divided eastern and northern Europe between his good buddy and fellow mass-murderer Josef Stalin, who later became accepted as an "Ally" and a bona fide liberator of Europe... The Nazis rose to power in the 1930's, besides the bitterness caused by Versailles, largely because of the imminent threat posed by Stalin and his ideology of a global communist dictatorship. Based on your acceptance of pre-emptive wars, it was perfectly acceptable for both Stalin and Hitler to invade their neighbours!! Simply blaming the French is nothing short of moronic neo-conservative revisionist jingoism. Pardon my bluntness.

      But instead of actually doing something to help their allies (the Poles) the French declared war and then sat around and waited to be attacked. The French acted like complete cowards and humanity paid the price for it.

      Surely you realize that their military capabilities were totally geared towards defending their own territory (too rigidly as we know now). No other country in Europe could foresee the carnage ahead either, and the US just sat back and profiteered from the wars raging in Europe, until 1942 without even declaring war against Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union! Some moral high ground you've got there...

      I maintain that the French were cowards and the German myth of invisibility is just that.

      One is a troll and another... about invisibility? Thinking about the Visigoths perhaps? Anyways, since you're so uncritically proud of your country's foreign military invasions, tell me why Americans continue believing that your wars are about some higher ideals when the facts point out towards the plain old greedy control of foreign raw materials? Instead of firm political and trade embargoes against countries like China and Russia which continue invading their neighbours the US is treating these as close friends??

    210. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Actually, by some accounts there were a number of high ranking Nazis who were homosexual. Some even go so far as to suggest that Hitler himself might have been a closet homosexual.

      This dosn't prove that Hitler or high ranking Nazi's were not homophobic. It's not unknown for bigots to be completly hypocritical and actually be members of the group they attack.

    211. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big talk coming from a continent we've garrisoned for the last 60 years.

    212. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by ambisinistral · · Score: 1
      It is an interesting dicotomy that many of the folks in here who are decrying Amaerican intervention in Iraq are also decrying the lack of intervention in europe in the beginning dtages of WWII. You are entirely correct that in both geography and in mindset Europe was much further away in the 40s than it is today.

      Further, America's model for ending wars was forged by Lincoln at the end of America's Civil War -- with mailice towards none and charity towards all. It was a model that idealistically stressed healing the rifts rather than exacting revenge.

      Wilson tried a very similar approach at the end of WWI and was rebuffed by the allies. There is little doubt that the needlessly harsh terms imposed on Germany, particularily since much of the motive of them agreeing to the cease fire at the end of WWI were the terms Wilson was offering, led to a bitterness that was to manifest itself in supporting Hitler and his brand of ultranationalism.

      --

      deserve's got nothing to do with it...

    213. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      So when you spend x4 times more for the _fastest_ pentium 4 compared to the second fastest you get a processor that is more than 4 times faster??

      Unfortunately innovation is always more costly than sticking to old well-tried methods. The EU militaries lack the US by 5 years making their technology costs more than 10 times less expensive, since the US has paid for the most costly part of the development, the innovation. But effectively the US is only 5 years ahead in technology giving it only a small margin on the battlefield.

    214. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by chefren · · Score: 1

      The border between France and Germany was so heavily fortified that any attack over that border would have been sheer folly. France would have had to attack the same way Gremany did: through Belgium and the Neatherlands. Perhaps they didn't consider marching their army through neutral nations an option.

    215. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Side note: South Africa has developed nukes in the past but dismantled them and the program.

    216. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The French would be speaking German or living life as a lampshade if it wasn't for the US, TWICE.

      My mother in law is from France, and you know what, SHE AGREES with me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    217. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > They declared war on germany the instant germany attack poland

      I DECLARE WAR ON YOU! I'm not going to actually do anything about it, however. Move along, nothing to see here.

    218. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 1

      8. South Africa

      Everyone always forgets about good ol' nuclear armed South Africa.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    219. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by zaphod_es · · Score: 1
      These are hardly Hitler's worst evils. Any way you spin it, comparing Bush with Hitler is obviously preposterous

      Indeed. But how about comparing the first three years of Hitler's power with Bush's. Without suggesting for one moment that Bush was in any way responsible for the 9/11 tragedy it is quite instructive to compare how he has used it with the way that Hitler used (and probably caused) the burning of the Reichstag. I find the thought of nearly five more years of Bush quite terrifying.

      ZB

    220. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      Yeah, but most of them will be British troops so they won't be so far off the mark here.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    221. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Your right there, we are stretched pretty thin, but it's not trying to occupy iraq, it's trying to occupy iraq and continue to occupy the rest of the world.

      Nonetheless, either way it's the same result in a sudden decisive attack, we can't assemble our forces fast enough.

    222. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by hemanman · · Score: 1

      Hehehe.

      Nice one. :-)

      -H

    223. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by alessio · · Score: 1

      Actually, EU *has* weapons of mass destruction: both France and Great Britain have nuclear warheads, thanks god.

      --
      "It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
    224. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      As I understand it they _had_ a nuclear program (with several functioning weapons). But to the best of my knowledge they voluntarily scapped that a while back and destroyed the weapons.

    225. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      You can't erase thousands of years of feuds at a stroke. Even right now Americans are still very very close the British (same language, same origin for the majority), and look how well they get along with the French (Both the Americans and the British). In all objectivity, are the French so bad? I don't think so. Neither are the German, the Dutch, the

      I the US there might be 50 states but they are all pretty much the same. Maybe a Californian will make fun of an Oregonian, but who cares? At the basic level they understand each other and an Oregonian might well become a Californian someday. It is a hell of a lot harder for a German to go to work in Spain, let me tell you. New language, new customs, hardly anything in common.

      For an American to say "oh, grow up, can't you realize you should get along?" to some Europeans and at the same time both rename their chips "freedom fries" and goes away and bomb somebody for political purposes is simply the height of irony.

      That the Europeans are starting to get along is a bloody miracle.

    226. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We'd just have to kill the young people. And since Europe is 99% old people it wouldn't be that hard. It's the oldest demographic on earth.

    227. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      I understand SkyNet will be running Longhorne so it could be a few more years. I wouldn't worry about it until the second service pack anyway.

    228. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the US has the same problem, you won't be able to send over enough young people to kill our youngsters. Tough luck.

    229. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      Thnak you for that!

      I used to have a little button that said this, but lost it ages ago.

      Being from a German-Jewish family (My grandparents were chased from their ancestral home outside Nuremburg in 1942, after years of evasion), this is particularly poignant (though rather offtopic). Thank you for bringing it up.

      Anyway, bravo!

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    230. Re:Peering into my crystal ball... by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      Hermann Goering was by more than a few accounts a homosexual and very likely a pedophile as well.

      He was also about as high as you could get in the Nazi chain of command.

      Besides, if you were straight, and KNEW you were about to die (by your own hand or someone else's) and you'd just married Eva VonBraun, wouldn't you hump her before the end? The fact that he never bothered to take time to consummate his union suggests a lot, I think.

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  2. Ominous by gid13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of your enemies like being "the ringleader of a vitamin cartel." :)

    1. Re:Ominous by CatPieMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I didn't even know such things existed. It sounds comical.

      So, what does a vitamin cartel do anyway? Do they price fix Iron suppliments or something? Or do they beat up the small iron works for trademark violation?

      I'm really curious.

      -CPM

      --
      ---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
    2. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first Fred Flintstone chewable is always free...

    3. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a quick search and think this answers your questions. You can search for ADM price fixing and find lost more.

    4. Re:Ominous by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 4, Informative

      They hike up the price for vitamin supplements to score big profits.

      Simple as that.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    5. Re:Ominous by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it was vitamins C and Beta Carrotine could have been A and some of the B Complex (I don't think it included any of the exotic suppliments). Anyway there were several big vitamin companies (a japanese one and ADM over here) who all conspired to keep the prices high by limiting supply. They were pretty direct about it, but thought that as long as they met in places where it was legal and were quiet about it they would get away with it. That's why the fines were so big, it was a major scandal in the mid 90s when the governments broke the cartel (and it was an open and shut case as they pretty much did it in the same style as OPEC (here's your quota etc). If you google for anti-trust and ADM you should find more than you ever wanted to read about it.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    6. Re:Ominous by modder · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It was "The cartels were established in products covering vitamins A, E, B1, B2, B5, B6, C, D3, Biotin (H), Folic acid (M), Beta Carotene and carotinoids." according to an article I link to in my reply to parent titled "The gateway vitamins". (I'd link it here, but won't for fear of being modded redundant. I'll probably be modded redundant just for saying that. Or that.)

    7. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see the moderators have a sense of humor today. (...I'll post anonymously because they are going to be cute and mark this as redundant also...)

    8. Re:Ominous by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Yes because Iron is really Vitamin Fe+

    9. Re:Ominous by MalachiConstant · · Score: 1
      Not sure if this is the same story (this was about ADM fixing the price of feed additives), but the radio show "This American Life" did a long story about how the companies got together and actually agreed to fix prices, and how the feds busted it up (a senior ADM manager taped the meetings and met with the feds).

      Anyway you can listen to the whole thing here. It's really an interesting story.

    10. Re:Ominous by prockcore · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, what does a vitamin cartel do anyway? Do they price fix Iron suppliments or something? Or do they beat up the small iron works for trademark violation?

      They horde all the flintstones chewables.

    11. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had to spoil a good comical thread with facts didn't you??!?!?!?!

    12. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, are you american? Iron is not a vitamin.

  3. E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is E500M in Windows 98SE licenses?

    1. Re:E500M by DaHat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best part of a plan such as to what you are hinting... is that you can value your own product however you want...

      "This, Windows 98 Super Ultra Deluxe Supremely Cool Second Edition is valued at 250 Million Euros, and thus for our settlement... we give you two copies... enjoy"

      Course... that assumes the EU agrees to such terms.

    2. Re:E500M by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Funny

      that assumes the EU agrees to such terms.

      The EU would never agree to such terms! What, you think we're backward in "old" Europe? We'd want at least 15 copies! And one for our mate Turkey, too!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:E500M by DaHat · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll give you 20 copies if your promise not to let the French have any!

    4. Re:E500M by Trejkaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh please. Just leave French out of the language sets and you will find the entire country is too arrogant to use the remaining product.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    5. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. The EU has all the guns, so they can make any conditions they think a judge won't balk at, and MS has no power to defend their freedom, because the laws are detrimental to freedom to begin with.

    6. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Just leave French out of the language sets and you will find the entire country is too arrogant to use the remaining product.

      Humor noted. Well really, who would want to buy a program that isn't in your own native language? Does it make you arrogant if you don't buy a great program you otherwise would, except it is in Maltese?

    7. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +4 insightful? Riiiiight.

      "From my parents' basement in seattle, I stab at thee!"

    8. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, help on the internet is mostly in English, so a lot of people prefer English versions. Nevertheless, you are right about the French. Luckily the francophones in Belgium are changing their attitude a bit and are in fact learning English and Dutch nowadays it seems. Still they refuse to talk these languages.

      Mind though, stating you are dutch-speaking and subsequently attempting not paying enough will help get shopkeepers learn exceptionally quick.

    9. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Oh please. Just leave French out of the language
      > sets and you will find the entire country is too
      > arrogant to use the remaining product.

      Leave English out, and you will find americans too dumb to use it...

    10. Re:E500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you keep the French langauge set but you insert the words "Walkman" and "Hotdog"

    11. Re:E500M by tokul · · Score: 1

      If you don't give 15 copies now and you will have to give 25 copies after 40 days.

  4. Yay! Tax rebates! by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We Eurocits can get a tax rebate too! Thanks, BG!

    Hang on. This is all going to pay for around 4 days of the CAP. Big deal.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  5. Drop in the bucket by southpolesammy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    The fine amounts to slightly more than one percent of Microsoft's roughly $53 billion cash on hand and did not impress analysts and critics.

    "This is a traffic ticket for Microsoft," said Thomas Vinje of Clifford Chance, who represents Microsoft critics.

    Neil Macehiter, an analyst with London-based technology research firm Ovum, said even a $3 billion fine would have been "an irritant to Microsoft but certainly wouldn't break the bank."

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is a traffic ticket for Microsoft," said Thomas Vinje of Clifford Chance, who represents Microsoft critics. Who is Thomas Vinje, and when was he appointed to be the representative of Microsoft critics?

    2. Re:Drop in the bucket by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "This is a traffic ticket for Microsoft," said Thomas Vinje of Clifford Chance, who represents Microsoft critics.

      Well, yes, and it's probably intended to be. Traffic tickets are not intended to end life as you know it, nor would a regulatory fine be intended to put a company out of business. Monopoly or not, it would not be in the EU's best interests for Microsoft to suddenly go belly up, or to abandon the European market because it's become unprofitable, thereby leaving all those currently using MS software in the lurch, support-wise, and out of all their license money that's guaranteed them future upgrades.

      The "slap on the wrist" analogy is often used to show that a penalty is too light, but in fact the whole point of a slap on the wrist is to get your attention and change your way of thinking and acting. Traffic tickets do not usually bankrupt anybody but hopefully they will get you to follow the law. They are an annoyance and one that most people would rather not deal with. And the only real way you eliminate the risk of receiving one is by obeying the law.

      So if this is seen as a traffic ticket, good. The penalty will have done its job.

    3. Re:Drop in the bucket by Hassman · · Score: 1

      I love how these reporters manipulate numbers.

      MS does not have 53 billion dollars of cash on hand. A quick look at their balance sheet shows that they only have 6.5 billion in cash right now.

      That being said, they do have 42.6 billion in "short term investments", but still.

      Obviously it looks a lot better for the article for the reporter to use the $53 number as opposed to the $6.5, but come on, why all the misinformation? Why must everything always be spun in such a way to make a bigger headline or a more drastic statistic?

      Bah. I hate the media.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    4. Re:Drop in the bucket by Prisoner+9 · · Score: 1

      Of course it is relatively, hardly a modicum, less than a jot, a tad at best. But Six hundred Million Dollars sure sounds like a shitload of cash. That's what the public hears and that's the effect.

    5. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anspen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very true. However traffic tickets also work because they accumulate. Lots of people shrug at the first one, and only get worked up (usually about 'government thieves' rather than their own law breaking) when they get their nth ticket.

      What I'm trying to say is: a) the more important part is still the rest of the verdict and b) how soon could a simmilar fine be impossed if MS continues to break rules (which they'll undoubtbly do)? If it's next year, the fine seems usable. If it is in 10 years, not so much.

    6. Re:Drop in the bucket by psoriac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Traffic tickets do not usually bankrupt anybody but hopefully they will get you to follow the law.

      You must not drive around Seattle much. =)

      However, this analogy is rather apt; in (Montana I believe) the cops are allowed to collect speeding tickets on the spot in the form of cash. People have taken to keeping a fifty on the dash so that they can speed through the state, and just pay the fine if they get caught (I don't blame them).

      This settlement amounts to the same thing - as long as you have the cash, keep doing what you've been doing.

      --
      I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
    7. Re:Drop in the bucket by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      analysts and accountants often pool "real" cash and certain types of short term securities together, and call it all "cash".

    8. Re:Drop in the bucket by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      Yes and no.

      If you asked the question "Is it worth it to Microsoft to lose 500MIL in exchange for a monopoly in the growing market of online music purchasing?" Consider in your answer how much money Microsoft has been willing to lose in its quest to take over the game console business.

      I think the objection that a 'traffic ticket' was insufficient has some validity. This said, in my opinion what will matter most is the remedial actions the EU orders. If the remedies have bite then the amount of the fine will be less important. It's my hope Microsoft is not allowed to avoid those by appeal delay-tactics.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    9. Re:Drop in the bucket by Hassman · · Score: 1

      I know they are often grouped together, but I figured there was a different term when one referred to both. Ah well, either way, MS is hardly going to care about the verdict.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    10. Re:Drop in the bucket by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      53b? Where did you get that from? It's more like 0.53b...

    11. Re:Drop in the bucket by opec · · Score: 1

      Where does the money of this 'traffic ticket' go to? The EU government? That really helps anyone who was trod upon by Microsoft's alleged illegal actions.

    12. Re:Drop in the bucket by Hassman · · Score: 1

      From the parent...

      The fine amounts to slightly more than one percent of Microsoft's roughly $53 billion cash on hand and did not impress analysts and critics.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    13. Re:Drop in the bucket by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Traffic tickets...

      My experience in Boston was that parking tickets could be considered more like an intermittent tax or fee. For many people, parking tickets lost their power as a stigma ("Mama, save me from that bad man , the parking ticket scofflaw!") and became just a cost of doing business.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    14. Re:Drop in the bucket by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      I believe most states do not allow people to pay the police right then and there. Why not? Fraud. Turn the lights on, and issue a warning instead of a ticket, but still collect the cash. I would take that bribe if I were a speeder. Insurance hikes alone would be worth it after your first ticket or two.

    15. Re:Drop in the bucket by thogard · · Score: 1

      If you depsoit $1 billion dollars into a short term deposit account (say 6 months), you can't take it out without fines, that doesn't count as cash but it does count as a liquid asset.

    16. Re:Drop in the bucket by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      It's not just the traffic ticket, it's the raised insurance rates. Insurers will usuaully ignore your first ticket. But if you get a second one, then say goodbye to your "safe driver" discount.

    17. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish they still did this, sadly they don't. Someone in the state found out how much money they can make from speed traps.

      The $75 fine I got for speeding was a testament to that.

    18. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      in (Montana I believe) the cops are allowed to collect speeding tickets on the spot in the form of cash. People have taken to keeping a fifty on the dash so that they can speed through the state, and just pay the fine if they get caught (I don't blame them).

      "Fifty bucks? Shit, officer, here's two hundred. I'm gonna speed through your whole damn state!"

    19. Re:Drop in the bucket by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      They're accused of putting Windows Media Player in Windows. Besides Real and Quicktime, who is actually harmed? Certainly not consumers.

    20. Re:Drop in the bucket by strictnein · · Score: 1

      He was appointed by the same people who appointed Jesse Jackson to represent African-americans.

    21. Re:Drop in the bucket by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      What nobody seems to understand is that a traffic ticket is not a license to keep speeding. Try telling the second traffic cop that "it's ok, i already paid your buddy this morning". 500 M EUR is a serious amount. Sure Microsoft has plenty of money in the bank, but hey, we're talking about Five Hundred Million Euros. Once you've fined somebody once, you open the gates to fining them again and again until they stop doing whatever it is you object to so much.

      Unfortunately, the remedial actions seem a little weak to me: offer two versions of windows (one with media player and one without)? What's that going to achieve? Anybody less than a complete newbie already knows that you can download your choice of media software from the internet, and the newbies with a media software free version of windows will just download the first one they find... using MSIE as their default browser... with MSN as the default home page... see where this is going? If choice was the issue, why not direct MS to bundle quicktime and real player with every license of windows sold in Europe? Yes, i know this raises the hackles on the back of any self-respecting libertarian American, but here in Europe we're used to big goverment stepping in and ruling by decree (especially since the EU)

      like bill said, "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    22. Re:Drop in the bucket by rixstep · · Score: 1

      Last I saw, eWEEK put $400 billion at little Billy's feet. Not for monopoly abuse, but for untrustworthy computing abuse: the sum of all damages caused by the worms hitting his fantastic software for the past four years.

      Now $400 billion is ten times what Billy is worth on a good day, and he'd never get it all out anyway, so a fine of $400 billion would hurt - and it would be just.

    23. Re:Drop in the bucket by Osty · · Score: 1

      Very true. However traffic tickets also work because they accumulate. Lots of people shrug at the first one, and only get worked up (usually about 'government thieves' rather than their own law breaking) when they get their nth ticket.

      While some people may be chronic offenders and a danger to others, most people complain about 'government thieves' because that's exactly what they are. If I get a speeding ticket for doing 70 in a 60 when everyone around me is doing 70+, then I'm just going to chalk it up as bad luck (well, after I hire a lawyer and successful fight to have the ticket dropped). I'm not going to change the speed I drive, however, because then I would be the danger.


      Traffic tickets have become a joke. They're a government revenue source, plain and simple; traffic tickets are rarely issued for public safety concerns anymore (if they ever were at all). City and state governments willfully ignore the Congressionally-recommended 85th percentile speed limits, choosing instead to keep the limits arbitrarily low to continue to rake in cash.

    24. Re:Drop in the bucket by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      He was appointed by Jesse Jackson? Are you sure?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    25. Re:Drop in the bucket by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was a stack of fives. Montana has a big chip on their shoulder regarding influence from Wasnington about things they consider to be their decsion. Back in the 60s we were one of the states with effectivly no speed limit (the rule was reasonable and prudent) and it was left to the driver and police to decide what was reasonable and pudent. In the 1970s as a result of the oil embargo the Governement wanted a national speed limit of 55 mph but they didn't have the authority to madate this limit. So they passed a law that any stated that did not have a 55 mph speed limit (and enforced it) would not recieve any highway funding. Montana has a ton of long streches of interstate that require significant maintence. So they had to pass and enforce a 55 mph speed limit. However there was never a penalty about how a state enforced the law. So they had a $5 speeding ticket (up to about 30 over which transitioned to reckless driving) which was payable in cash and not ticket was filed (so your insurance company never found out either). Many people considered it their price to go fast and kept a stack of 5s in the jockey box or on the dash. Except at night when the speed limit went back to 55 and heavy fines were levied.
      After the highway funding law was recinded we tried to go back to the reasonable and prudent and it worked fairly well (most people drove reasonably and prudently) with the occasional out of state joyrider who thought that their 88 camero who may well have thought it was prudent to trave at 130 through the mountains. I think there was a race car driver who successfully argued his way out of a 140 mph ticket while driving his Porsche on an abandoned eastern montana highway (you can see for miles) on a sunny summer day (weather was a factor in the reasonable and prudent decsion), but that might have been a "rural" legend. He was skilled, the equipment could handle the stresses. The law was backed off when everyone took their speeding ticket to court (as a ticket for not driving prudently got you a pretty significant fine and possibly put you back into reckless driving) and the courts found that it was too costly to fight every single fine issued so we have a 75 mph interstate speed limit (although it's fairly rare to pass the HWP except in a few areas) but most people still drive the interstate at 80-85 which was the speed they generally have gone for the past 30 years. This is ofcourse after you leave the mountains, the turns, altitude, and incline keep you pretty close to the speed limit as you go through the mountains.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    26. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They stopped allowing this in New Mexico when people would pick up old cop cars at auctions and go pull some people over, pretending to be cops and making of with the cash on the spot

      Funny things also, I got caught speeding in Des Moines, Iowa and before giving me the ticket, the cop asked me if I had a legal reason for speeding.

    27. Re:Drop in the bucket by jdreed1024 · · Score: 1
      Well, yes, and it's probably intended to be. Traffic tickets are not intended to end life as you know it, nor would a regulatory fine be intended to put a company out of business.

      No, but they are intended to make you realize that what you did was wrong and not do it again. If a traffic ticket is low enough, that doesn't happen. In Boston, for example, the average parking ticket (excluding tow zones) was $10.00. Parking your car in a garage for the day was closer to $15.00. Guess what people did? Parked illegally and paid the fine. Since they paid their tickets promptly, they didn't get their car booted, and parking tickets don't lead to points on your license. The city finally wised up, and now it's something like $50 or $80 minimum for a parking ticket. People suddenly decided that maybe parking in a garage was cheaper.

      It's the same thing with MS. Fines should be a percentage, not a flat rate. $500 million would put, say, Redhat out of business in a second. The same amount would hurt Apple, but probably not fatally. For Microsoft, however, it's a pittance. To be paid in 20 equal installments of 1/20th of a pittance each.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    28. Re:Drop in the bucket by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Short term investments are effectivly cash, they are the same sort of investments as a money market fund holds. Loans made to high credit quality organizations that range in maturity from 1 day to 1 year. As a result while you might only be able to raise 40 billion of that $42.1 billion in 45 days it is as close as you get to holding effectivly cash. Right now they likely have it in the shorter term stuff (less than 3 months) as people fear a rate increase and don't want to be holding paper that will decline in value if when they do. Short term investments would be considered cash (long term ones are usually not considered cash, as they might not be liquid enough to raise cash quickly). MS will likely pay the fine with short term notes as the Europeans would likely put the money to work in the same markets until they had a use for it.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    29. Re:Drop in the bucket by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      You have a point. Perhaps the problem with the ticket analogy is that you can get a ticket in 20 minutes. Getting to the point of fining Microsoft, however, has taken a long time. Waiting until Microsoft exhausts all its appeal options will probably also take a long time.

      I remember when IE 3.0 was released. It came bundled with critical fixes to the common controls DLL that couldn't be downloaded seperately. This, even though this library is considered by all to be core to win32 GUI programs. A ton of software started specifying shorlty afterwards that you needed IE for their product to work properly.

      They've followed the IE approach with Media player and MS Messenger both of which are now 'core parts of the OS' they say.

      It's clear to me somebody has to force Microsoft to stop creating these artificial dependencies which serve only to further their dominance in choice markets.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    30. Re:Drop in the bucket by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      they only have 6.5 billion in cash right now

      I guess I'm just getting old, but *only $6.5 billion in cash* seems like a mega-oxymoron to me.

    31. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're gonna pay with coupons anyway...

    32. Re:Drop in the bucket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. You see, the drivers take a calculated risk. They need to balance the risk of getting caught and the penalty with the value they recieve from doing it (perhaps they like speeding, perhaps they are in a rush, etc).

      Microsoft also have the choice of taking a calculated risk. How much can they get away with until they get fined again? How much will they get fined a second time? What value will cheating the system bring? Will it put them in a better market position, and if so, is the price of getting caught low enough to make taking the risk and getting a better market position worthwhile?

      I think any fine like this should contain the exact terms under which Microsoft can "stay clean" and the penalties in future should they break the terms. Make them high enough, and you won't be unfairly punishing them, but you will be deterring them from repeat offences.

    33. Re:Drop in the bucket by unoengborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not only about the cash for the fine.

      It is also very much about customer perception. If Microsoft have to pay a fine that is higher than what most companies could have afforded, they will realize that Microsoft is not sent by God, and will be much more aware of Microsoft strong arming tactics when and where they show up.

      This could be much more costly to Microsoft than the fine itself. Especially now when Linux starts to emerge as a vialble alternative in many situations.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    34. Re:Drop in the bucket by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's all fine and dandy but you shouldn't profit from breaking the law (ideally ever) particulary when caught and convicted. If Microsoft made 1 trillion dollars by breaking the law, the MINIMUM fine for the crime should be 1 trillion 1, whether that bankrupts microsoft or not is irrelevant.

      And the real number is more like 100billion, which would be a reasonable fine, they simple lose the profit they made breaking the law. Having already spent some of their illgotten gains is their own problem. Now 100billion of course wouldn't bankrupt microsoft who already has something to the tune of 80billion in cash reserves. But it would cause them to have to restructure and liquidate assets, it would be a blow to their buisness but not a death blow. A mere 600mil isn't even a sneeze.

      If I make $10/minute, and save 10minutes by speeding to work, that's $100. Now lets say I get a ticket everyday for $50 (this is showing a concept, dont' pull out the anal details like the time it takes to get the ticket). I'm still profiting by $50/day by breaking the law. As long as I come out ahead, why the hell would I stop?

      This is more like a tax than a fine, the EU is saying they want a cut.

    35. Re:Drop in the bucket by cpjackso · · Score: 1

      But if they put E500M into promoting Open Source in the EU - that'd be a double slap.

      (I bet it wouldn't have much of a real effect on the EU tho!).

    36. Re:Drop in the bucket by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      The fact is that the slap on the wrist in the US had no effect at all, and the Criminal Monopoly continues to expand into other areas. Itwill be the same here, unless the EU puts very severe constraints in place and is prepared, very quickly, to impose much higher fines if the abuse continues.

      The next one should be about $10 billion, so it really hurts, the final one should destroy M$ if they have not learnded to behave, and should involve imprisonment of chief executives. That is what would be likely to happen with a lesser organisation flouting financial laws.

    37. Re:Drop in the bucket by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      I always thought that when I told the cop I was in a hurry and 'could I pay the fine to you in cash?' I was doing something illegal. Now you're saying that I can go to Montana and do it legally? State-approved bribery, here I come!

      And on top of that, while I'm there, I'm almost guaranteed fifty bucks for every car I can jimmy open? Man, big sky country here I come.

      --Dan

    38. Re:Drop in the bucket by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Ah! 1% of 53b, or 0.53b... all makes sense now!

  6. And Gates says... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    All I wanted was sharks with freaking lasers on their heads?

    How freaking hard is that?

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  7. Nice to see some backbone by dowobeha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft. Rather than finding them guilty of anti-trust laws, then slapping them on the wrist....

    --
    I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    1. Re:Nice to see some backbone by goosebane · · Score: 1

      Slapping them on the wrist? How much is a mere 1/2 Billion going to set someone like Mr. Gates back? I would see the fine as more of a warning than a real punishment.

    2. Re:Nice to see some backbone by dowobeha · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Slapping them on the wrist? How much is a mere 1/2 Billion going to set someone like Mr. Gates back? I would see the fine as more of a warning than a real punishment.

      Compared with the terms of the USDOJ settlement, this is nice to see. Could have the punishment here been harsher? Certainly. Should have it been harsher? Possibly. Is a 500m euro file harsher punishment than a US settlement that allows donations of a monopoly's product in partial lieu of payments? Definitely.

      --
      I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    3. Re:Nice to see some backbone by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft.

      This isn't towards the poster, but more to the moderaters.

      Everyone should have a good idea of how big MS is and how little the fine means to them. If I was MS I would be thinking along the lines of "... just the cost of doing business".

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Strudelkugel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems to me Microsoft might as well start playing hardball here - Drop the price of an Xbox to $0, offer tracks on the new music service for $0.50, charge $10 or give away copies of Enterprise Architect, take a few high profile clients and offer huge discounts for OS and Office site licenses.

      If they don't, they will be accused of being monopolists anyway, leading to more and more fines, (just where does the money from fines go?) and more bad publicity. Since there is now a populist appeal to going after the company, they might as well create counter sentiment buy really becoming popular with consumers.

      Microsoft doesn't have a business problem - it has a political problem. Anti-trust cases are inherently political, so we shall see if they learn to play that game. I still don't believe Microsoft is any more of a monopoly than Intel, but Intel knows how to play the game.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    5. Re:Nice to see some backbone by dowobeha · · Score: 1
      >It's nice to see that some governmental anti-trust bodies have the backbone to stand up to Microsoft.

      This isn't towards the poster, but more to the moderaters.

      My original post was meant as a jab at the US Department of Justice under King George II.

      I fully recognize that the fine is a drop in the bucket of MS's finances. I also recognize that this is both better than nothing, and better than what the US did.

      --
      I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    6. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US Settlement has put Microsoft under strict restrictions in how they deal with OEMs -- which is exactly the reason you can now buy a PC from Dell and HP that doesn't include Windows. No more price discrimination, no more backroom threats.

      Don't kid yourself -- Microsoft would much rather pay a E500M fine than have their monopolistic tactics curtailed. And this crap about removing Media Player? - blah, nobody will care.

    7. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You are on target. We should all be disappointed that the EU has decided that it deserves a portion of Microsoft's profits.

      After all, Europeans decided to buy Windows and were happy enough with Media Player that they didn't buy someone else's infersior product. Real Player really stinks compared to WMP, and it pops up annoying adware for Real.com, etc.

      This is a sad day for freedom.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    8. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      I still don't believe Microsoft is any more of a monopoly than Intel, but Intel knows how to play the game.

      Well, I'm typing this on an AMD-based PC running Mozilla, so maybe you have a point.

      Then again, Intel and AMD have swapped the lead in the processor race and each has maintained a very significant market share for years, while even Microsoft's main rivals -- probably the big names from the OSS world at this point -- languish with single figures of percent of market share at best, a few niche market exceptions notwithstanding. Maybe the point wasn't so great after all...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Nice to see some backbone by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Seems to me Microsoft might as well start playing hardball here - Drop the price

      They can't ... that's called Price Dumping... selling below the cost of your competition in order increases your market share.

    10. Re:Nice to see some backbone by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with real player.

      It has to do with Microsoft - as usual - mishandling their dominant position in the market.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    11. Re:Nice to see some backbone by pyros · · Score: 2, Redundant
      Seems to me Microsoft might as well start playing hardball here - Drop the price of an Xbox to $0, offer tracks on the new music service for $0.50, charge $10 or give away copies of Enterprise Architect, take a few high profile clients and offer huge discounts for OS and Office site licenses.

      Priceless. I take it you don't realize selling everything other than Windows and Office at a loss (bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player into the OS, making them "free") to drive competition out of business is pretty much what landed them in trouble in the first place.

    12. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      How did they mishandle it? Mishandling it would be to charge too much for it. They just include WMP with the OS. It sure is about Real Player. Look who the plaintiffs are in the case: Sun and Real Networks. How can they sleep at night having to resort to this kind of garbage.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    13. Re:Nice to see some backbone by jwsd · · Score: 1

      I doubt the true difference is the attitude toward antitrust law between the US government and the EU.
      Microsoft is a US company. Any government will eventually have to protect their own money makers. A profitable US company is a competition to similar European companies, hence the drastically different results.
      In the end, each side is just trying protect their own companies. Although, incidentally, the EU decision also helps Microsoft's competitors in the US. Look at Munich's decision to switch from Windows to Linux. Why did they choose SUSE Linux over Red Hat Linux?

    14. Re:Nice to see some backbone by mingot · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's main rivals -- probably the big names from the OSS world at this point -- languish with single figures of percent of market share at best, a few niche market exceptions notwithstanding.

      Maybe that has more to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the rival's products than it does with microsoft's market practices? I know it would be hard for a lot of people to stop for a moment and realize that the side for whom they have been cheerleading are not perfect and are in the position they find themselves due to their own mistakes and/or shortcomings. But then maybe if they did the problem could be corrected. Nah, that would be dumb. Better we hope our governments can simple legislate our choosen software products into the number one spot.

    15. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Danse · · Score: 1

      Including WMP is the very least of the things that Microsoft should be punished for. This is more like bringing down Al Capone for tax evasion. It's not the worst crime MS has committed, but it's the one that they can make stick right now.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    16. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Mishandling it would be, for example, bundling WMP with Windows and then leveraging the presence of WMP on desktops to push their own, proprietary media technologies (like WMA/WMV). Or leveraging the presence of IE on the desktop to push their own, proprietary server-side technologies.

      The point is they're abusing their monopoly in the OS market in order to push their own technologies on people (I would argue that their .NET initiative is an even more obvious example of this... it sure seems like a convenient way to unseat Sun/Java).

    17. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 1

      Mishandling is also using it to get your self a dominant position in another market. At the moment those markets are the games console market, the SMB Server market, and the Online Music/Media player market. Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly in 2 out of 3. And at last it's being knocked down for one of them.

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    18. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What is MS guilty of? You should make a list of things that weren't covered in the US decision, because since that took place MS has modified its business practices.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    19. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      How does that constitute abuse? The US case forced Microsoft to modify its business practices. What should Microsoft do, consult the EU every time it wants to release a new product? Or consult the EU before determining what price to charge for it?

      Charging $0, btw, is precisely NOT leveraging monopoly power. If Microsoft had monopoly power to leverage, it would leverage it for profit, not for market share.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    20. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, you haven't defined abuse other than to point to areas where Microsoft is successful.

      If you built a hotel and wanted to market it, you might decide to sell rooms at a discount in order to draw clientelle from your competetors. You might even decide to charge $0 for a room for a while. If you want to increase awareness, how is this a bad idea unless you do it too long and sacrifice profit for too long?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    21. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 1

      Your analogy doesn't really apply, it would however if you're the only hotel group in 5 towns, and then you set up a hotel in a 6th town with free rooms in order to kill off the competition

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    22. Re:Nice to see some backbone by G-funk · · Score: 1

      They got a slap on the wrist?

      I was under the impression they laughed (cackled maniacally) and walked away.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    23. Re:Nice to see some backbone by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      I think you should read more than just the first paragraph he wrote.

    24. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't believe Microsoft is any more of a monopoly than Intel, but Intel knows how to play the game.

      If Intel say to an OEM, "we won't let you use our chips if you also ship AMD machines", nobody cares, because Intel are not so automatic a choice that only shipping AMD machines would lose an OEM a lot of custom. In other words, Intel don't have a monopoly and they aren't abusing the monopoly they don't have.

      If Microsoft say to an OEM, "if you distribute Linux you won't get a discount on Windows", the OEM basically has to roll over and take it up the ass, because an OEM that doesn't offer Windows is going to lose a lot of business. In other words, Microsoft have a monopoly and they are abusing it.

      Capisce?

    25. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What would be wrong with that? Consumers benefit by having cheaper hotel rooms. As long as there still is competition, then it's ok. There is lots of competition in the media player area. Winamp, iTunes, Real Networks, VideoLan, etc., etc.

      The issue here is that Microsoft's competetors can't compete by writing better code, so they hire lawyers and fight it out that way. It just makes things worse for consumers.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    26. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I trust that no distribution of Linux will *ever* bundle a media player of any kind. That would be fair, right?

    27. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charging $0, btw, is precisely NOT leveraging monopoly power. If Microsoft had monopoly power to leverage, it would leverage it for profit, not for market share.

      Are you stupid or something?

      Do you know what "vendor lock-in" means?

      It means that expanding market share means that your profits also expand.

      If 95% of the people who use a PC use Windows, and 95% of the people who use Windows use Windows Media Player exclusively, then the obvious choice of format for streaming audio or video will be Windows Media. It would not make economic sense for a provider of online multimedia to choose a different format.

      So let us suppose that Microsoft leverage their monopoly power to ensure that Windows Media Player becomes utterly dominant, and that as a result of this 95% of the providers of online multimedia only provide their content in Windows Media format.

      Joe New User wants to buy a computer. He has a choice of a Windows PC, a Linux PC, or an Apple Mac.

      Joe wants to be able to access music and video online.

      95% of online music and video, in this hypothetical scenario, is only available in Windows Media format. Microsoft have not released a Linux player, so obviously the Linux machine is out of the question. And Microsoft will by now have discontinued their Mac player, so that choice is also ruled out.

      Joe buys the Windows PC, because that's the only way he can be sure of accessing the stuff he wants.

      Microsoft's profits increase.

      Exactly the same principle applies to the Office monopoly. Most businesses standardise on Windows + Office, because that's what their suppliers, partners, and customers all use. And because the Office formats aren't open, programs like OpenOffice.org can't read every Office document, so they can't compete adequately.

      So Microsoft's profits increase again, despite the appearance of competition.

      Microsoft have a monopoly. They are abusing that monopoly. They still have, and are still abusing, a monopoly, despite the cosmetic changes to their business practices after the US prosecution.

      Nice troll, by the way.

    28. Re:Nice to see some backbone by UID30 · · Score: 1

      This fine is strictly front pocket money for MSFT ... and/or Bill Gates, for that matter. They don't need to take ANY internal action on this other than whipping out their checkbook and asking "To whom should we make this check payable?" The company has more than $50b (yes billion, francis) in current assets at the moment, including more than $6b in cash and $42b in marketable securities. Bill Gates himself cashes out on personal stock & options to the tune of over $1b/year ($546,439,392 so far this year) in pre-scheduled liquidations, of course. Since 2002, he has sold more then 100 million shares of microsoft...

      500m euro is just 1 step up from the joke of a settlement the USDOJ got handed... err ... handed them. The only downside (apart from the insignificant loss of capital) that I can see is the impression that it hurts them ... which may have negative impact on their stock price for a short time. But this too can be used to turn a profit...

      --
      "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
    29. Re:Nice to see some backbone by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Seems to me Microsoft might as well start playing hardball here - Drop the price of an Xbox to $0, offer tracks on the new music service for $0.50, charge $10 or give away copies of Enterprise Architect, take a few high profile clients and offer huge discounts for OS and Office site licenses.

      I'm onto you, you just want a free X Box!

      -matt

      PS: So do I, I hope they take your idea into consideration!

    30. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that has more to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the rival's products than it does with microsoft's market practices? I know it would be hard for a lot of people to stop for a moment and realize that the side for whom they have been cheerleading are not perfect and are in the position they find themselves due to their own mistakes and/or shortcomings. But then maybe if they did the problem could be corrected. Nah, that would be dumb. Better we hope our governments can simple legislate our choosen software products into the number one spot.

      Nice troll, mister.

      It's a nice troll because it's partly true. Linux really isn't as usable as Windows. Did you see that? I criticised a prominent OSS product. That means I'm not a blind fanboy or cheerleader.

      It's a troll because it's also blatantly false. Mozilla really is superior to Internet Explorer in almost every way. Please note again how just above I criticised Linux. I have the ability to recognise flaws in the software I use. And I see far more flaws in Internet Explorer than in Mozilla.

      So, sorry, but no. Microsoft did obtain their monopoly partly by putting out good software, and it's important not to lose sight of that fact. But they are not maintaining it by continuing to put out the best software, they are putting out software that's "good enough" and using their huge market share to ensure that a competitor won't break in without being vastly better - merely ten times better won't be enough, for example.

      And - I repeat this for the ten thousandth time - that is why Microsoft's monopoly is harmful.

    31. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 1

      Read my post before replying, this is being done to kill off the competition. And your right, there is lots of competition in the media player area _at_the_moment_, but that there won't be if all (at least 95%) of online content is wmv, which is what will happen if nothing is done since the wm codecs come with the bundled media player on every machine.

      That's the whole point of this ruling. It's got nothing to do with which program has the most bloat, or installs the most spyware. The point is that:
      A) Microsoft would never have the 40% market share it has now without bundling (which violates trust law since it's using your monopoly in one product space to gain a monopoly in another) and
      B) the bundled media player is also bundling the windows media codecs (again, exploiting monopoly to gain another, in this case in media distribution).

      Now you may ask why is this bad?

      Let's look at office suits (And I know that this one was won , more or less, fair and square). When MS Office came out, it was the cheap, and good quality. Now it's the defacto standard, MS has gotten everyone on an extremally expensive upgrade treadmil, where the formats are changed just enough each time to make upgrading a necessity to communicate with the rest of the world.

      Another (extremally well trodden) example: IE
      When IE came out, it gained market share through being bundled, a lot of people didn't even know netscape existed. Now that the Browser War (?1, there might be a come back of the Lizard) is over, IE has been stagnating for years, with almost no significant improvement.

      I'm going to bed now (1 o'clock here), so if you want to continue this off slashdot, please feel free to mail me.

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    32. Re:Nice to see some backbone by eofpi · · Score: 1
      I still don't believe Microsoft is any more of a monopoly than Intel, but Intel knows how to play the game.

      Not really. It's just that Intel got their antitrust suit settled before anyone off Wall St. cared. Why do you think AMD and Intel's chips interoperate so well? The settlement mandates compulsory licensability of each other's x86 (and derivatives like x86-64) -related IP.

      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    33. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Yakko · · Score: 1

      Charging $0 could be argued to constitute product dumping.

      Name one of MS's "modifications" that directly benefits me, their end user. I still can't play their content in any OS I want. I still can't reliably use their stinky Word format in any other word processor... for example.

      MS isn't the choice I want to HAVE to make just because someone else (in their own right) chose MS for the file sitting in front of me.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    34. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      So the thing is, you have to show how consumers are harmed in order to show that a company has abused market power. Being able to obtain superb multimedia software for $0 is a pretty nice position to be in as a consumer. This is why it's Microsoft's competetors who start these lawsuits, not consumers. Consumers have never been happier.

      Plus, it's not as though a few smart people couldn't very quickly create an alternative. OSS alternatives currently exist, but there's nobody marketing them like Microsoft. Now you're going to tell me that Marketing should be illegal :-)

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    35. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I agree with some of the facts you mention.

      The problem with your argument is, in order to show that a company abused monopoly power, you have to show how consumers (not competetors) were harmed.

      The scenario you describe is one in which Microsoft artificially drives the price of certain products down to $0 by bundling. The supposed terrible result is going to occur when Microsoft kills off all competetors and then starts raising prices.

      The problem with your argument comes at this point. When the prices are $0, consumers are extremely well-off. Since prices are still so low, the harm to consumers that everyone is so worreied about hasn't happened yet.

      If/when Microsoft begins raising prices, then others will offer alternative solutions, and those that present a better value will win. Right now the market price for web browsers and media players is $0. Microsoft has a distribution advantage, but most people still end up downloading other players. I use iTunes and VideoLan myself, in addition to WMP on windows.

      If Microsoft starts charging, I and millions of other people will look to a free alternative.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    36. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Office support RTF? Can't you buy a PDF writer and use that? What am I missing. If you use .doc you must value some of the added features/functions, since everyone with Office or openoffice can read it.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    37. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that Microsoft's problem that people won't switch? I use firefox almost exclusively (I use IE for testing/deleting cookies/occasionally using proxies to keep my normal settings in tact), and I have only OpenOffice.org installed, but I still use Windows XP. Why? Because Linux still sucks as a desktop. Yeah, that's a little trollish I guess, but it's the truth. I just can't stand it. Any incarnation of Windows since 95b is better (except possibly ME...). I use FreeBSD as a server, use Linux all the time at work, but as a desktop....

    38. Re:Nice to see some backbone by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I prefer to consider the fact that the top technical talent in the world finds Microsoft's products (basically, all of them) to be inferior to most of the competiting products in each category to be a reasonable blow against that argument. But please come again.

    39. Re:Nice to see some backbone by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Axiom: Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop.

      Scenario:
      Company A start making new, innovative product (e.g: Real, Netscape). Microsoft waits a bit, decides A is on a winner, either buys A outright or makes competing product. Microsoft bundles product, makes it cooler, better than A's product using its vast resources, etc.

      Users move to using Microsoft's product. A dies. Microsoft has continued to assert their dominance, while not innovating one bit. Shortly Microsoft loses interest in the product A used to make because there is no competition anymore.

      Case in point: Internet Explorer. How long have we had IE6? When is IE going to support web standards?

      This is not healthy. The famed market is not rewarding the innovators, it's rewarding the wealthy. If you want to have continued innovation and competition in the marketplace you need to change this. Microsoft has in its sight the game console makers, Google, and a host of other minor stuff you never hear about, but when you do, you might think "oh yes, these guys used to make good software".

      Microsoft is happy to have a large number of small development house who do little pieces of software that a minority of people use and as long as it runs on its own system. As soon as any of these companies comes up with something that more than about a million people would use, they apply the above tactics. It's trouble-free, guaranteed to work and they are not afraid to use it.

      You decide in which world you want to live. If you think the above is fine and you will trust Microsoft for the remainder of your days to provide the best IT environement anybody can dream of, I don't have an argument with you. However this is not my opinion.

      Microsoft tactics make my blood boil, I think they make horrible software and have only their own interest as heart. We need the competition. Bring on the fines, Europe!

    40. Re:Nice to see some backbone by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      In the meantime Microsoft is not happy to pay. It will create a precedent, and they are fighting it tooth and nail.

      Believe me if it turns out they do eventually pay, there will be some long faces at Microsoft, and the stock will take a beating, and the shareholder will start asking questions, because it might be (and *might* is enough) the beginning of the end for Microsoft.

      It won't take 10 of these fines to bring Microsoft down completely.

    41. Re:Nice to see some backbone by mingot · · Score: 1

      I find the fact that most OSS projects cant even GIVE THEIR PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE AND HAVE PEOPLE USE THEM a reasonable blow against yours. But please come again.

    42. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "since that took place MS has modified its business practices."

      Dude, that's a good one. I'm impressed that you managed to say that with a straight face.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    43. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cuz Microsoft has never done that. Couldn't happen.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    44. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just because the US trial finished doesn't mean MS has been punished for their past transgressions. They just lucked out that the Republicans got back into the White House and decided that anti-trust laws weren't going to be enforced.

    45. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      They are guilty of using their monopoly position in one market to gain dominance in other markets, unfairly competing by means of bundling.

      That is illegal in the EU.

    46. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      No linux distribution should leverage its monopoly (???) to try to monopolize the multimedia market. That does not mean it cannot include a media player.

      MS tries to monopolize the application space step by step by means of including things in their OS instead of by open and fair competition with others.

      That said, I believe the solution is in forcing MS to support open standards and to publish their file formats. That way they can have their monopoly but only by virtue of having the better product.

    47. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      The problem is that with no competition, the incentive for improvement will be gone.

      The consumer is hurt by not getting as good a product as could be for the money after a while.

      Oh, and nothing from MS costs $0. Their proffit margin on Windows just got a tiny little bit less absurd.

    48. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just write better software? Why cheer for a lawsuit? If Microsoft software is so bad, why doesn't someone create some that is close? What about OSS?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    49. Re:Nice to see some backbone by mr_death · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I, for one, am tired of the EU meddling with US companies. Previous examples include:

      Boeing/McDonnell Douglas -- EU forced changes to contracts with Delta, and American Airlines
      Honeywell/GE -- merger blocked

      Perhaps a little tit-for-tat is in order to show the EU bureaucrats the errors of their ways. First, the US could simply declare the merger of Air France and KLM illegal. Second, the US FTC could declare that the government subsidies of Airbus are illegal, and impose either contervailing duties on Airbus aircraft, or simply refuse to allow new Airbus aircraft to land in the US. We could watch the EU squeal like pigs when their 6 million Euro subsidy of the A380 goes straight down the toilet.

      Memo to the EU: fuck with us, and we'll fuck with you. And you'll lose.

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
    50. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SDPlaya · · Score: 1

      You say "we need the competition"... the only way to bring about competition is to fine Microsoft? Of course they have their interests at heart. So does GE, Intel, Walmart, Boeing, IBM, Red Hat, EA, Ford, Del Monte, General Mills, etc... And if they do make horrible software, apparently people like it. I made a rational decision to migrate from Netscape to IE5 some years ago. My software experience improved dramatically from that point forward. If Microsoft made bad software, I'm not sure what to call Netscape. Stare Office and OpenOffice have consistently been worse for me than MS Office. Eclipse is not in the same league as Visual Studio. SQL Server is just as good as Oracle for what I need to do (small shop type of databases) -- and less buggy! I guess I just like horrible software.

    51. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an intelligent person's desktop, linux beats XP hands down. I can set things up the way I want, and I can find details of what just about anything does/has done to my system.

      For someone who just wants to sit down, and point and click their way to an app they already know, Windows beats linux hands down. There's very little variation from machine to machine, and rather than set things up the way they might like, most people instead learn through repetition how to do the things they want to do, and leave it at that.

    52. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal here in the US too, except when Republicans get too powerful.

    53. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll call.

      Prove that a "Free Market" benefits consumers. Show how copyright benefits consumers. Show how patents benefits consumers...

      You cannot. Because it would require rerunning the world in parallel. Time only goes in one direction.

      What you do is you say "well, capitalism is based on the free market being good. Given that, where the market is made less free, that is bad. So, MS pushing out competitors is bad for consumers."

      Now, argue against MS being anti-competitive and you have to argue why the free market is a bad thing.

    54. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Tom · · Score: 1

      Microsoft doesn't have a business problem - it has a political problem.

      I call bullshit on that one.

      "Monopoly" is a term from the business/economics area, not from politics. Politics is the cluster around "democracy", "monarchy", "elections", "parliament", "president", etc.

      Even in anarchy, i.e. ignoring all politics, there are good economic reasons to limit monopolies.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    55. Re:Nice to see some backbone by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1

      Microsoft doesn't have a business problem - it has a political problem.
      The goal of anti-trust enforcement should be to turn that political problem into a business problem. If MS get hit with a half billion Euro fine every 2 years, then it becomes a business problem. The shareholders won't like the profits being eaten into like that. MS will have to treat the fines as a cost on its business practises and consider using practises that do not incur such costs. (I'm pretty sure that anti-trust fines don't count as an operating cost for tax purposes).

    56. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is - but the definition is "selling below your own cost in order to increase your market share".

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    57. Re:Nice to see some backbone by mikechant · · Score: 1

      One of the earlier posts stated MS worldwide turnover at $32 billion. That means that if MS does not comply with the required remedies, the EU can continue stepping up the fines until they reach $3.2 billion per year every year. Surely *that's* going to hurt?

    58. Re:Nice to see some backbone by mikechant · · Score: 1

      "Memo to the EU: fuck with us, and we'll fuck with you. And you'll lose."
      Yes. And so will the US. Both sides tend to lose in an escalating trade war, and both sides know this. That's why they pull back from the brink and compromise when it's in danger of getting out of control. That's why both sides (eventually, relutantly and to the minimum possible extent) tend to comply with WTO rulings.

    59. Re:Nice to see some backbone by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      They are already breaking the law by dumping the Xbox. Action should be taken now, and if he did then cut it to zero, that would then be a clear contempt of court, which would probaably result in a prison sentence for at least one M$ executive.

      Look what happens when something else is dumped, RAM for example. It gets a very fast response from the regulators.

      The fact is that nothing but a very severe punitive sentence has any effect on the average scumbag, corporate or not.

      BTW Intel is not quite a monopoly, in fact their main competitor on the processor front (AMD) is keeping them very worried, as they should be, by being technically ahead. Intel may fall irretreivably from their present position over the 64-bit issue, they will not be completely wiped out of course. If Intel tried by illegal means to undermine AMD, then they would be in the same position as the scumbags of Redmond, but as far as I am aware, their only methods have been legitimate, if you can call excessive advertising legitimate.

    60. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Who is being harmed by the settlement? And how?

      When you show that antitrust action needs to be taken, you need to show actual harm to consumers.

      I use linux and Windows, and I use iTunes, VideoLan, and WMP. Where is there a lack of competition? All that I observe is that the market price for media players is $0, which happens to be the price I paid for all three listed above.

      Consumers are extremely well off with such prices. I wish other industries (houses, cars, electronics) had such great prices.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    61. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What is the negative effect of the market dominance acheived by Microsoft?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    62. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Why is there no competition? I have managed to install VLC and iTunes on my windows machine without any trouble at all. The price I paid for each of those was $0. Had either of them seemed worth >$0, I would have happily paid the price. The market price for media player software happens to currently be $0. This is the same price as soda refills at most restaurants.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    63. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      There is soem competition still right now.

      They are however trying to kill the competition in this field in the same way as in previous fields.

      They make something that is just good enough and ensure the consumer gets it without seeing that they pay for it.

      The only way to compete with that is by making a vastly superior product with unique features that make a big difference for the consumer.

      Just making a better media player and selling it for a fair price? you may want to pay for it, just like I am someone who is willing to buy music. Sadly enough most people will not pay for something better if they can get something that seems good enough for no obvious cost.

      That indeed threatens the currently existign competitors in this area, and prevents new competitors from entering this area.

      This would not be a problem if MS did not have a monopoly, just remember that the rules change when you have one, and that that is one of the very few things that protects society from the power of mega corporations.
      Upholding that is important beyond the products and specific company we are talking about here.

    64. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > What is the negative effect of the market dominance acheived by Microsoft?

      In this specific case it is that they have shown over and over to use such a dominance to force evryone to use their proprietary formats.

      That means that if they get their way, in a little while you wont have any choice with regards to what platform you use for watching video, regardless of it beign streamed onlien video, or a DVD you rented.

      This creation of a lock-in has always resulted in forced upgrades to create a continues money stream for whoever managed to create the lock-in (note that MS is not unique in trying this)

      The end result? the consumer gets no choice and less quality while being forced to pay more.
      That in my world is directly hurting consumers.

      If you want any proof of such things, I suggest you look at MS Office and their forced upgrades and the fact that it basicly tries to explicitly exclude any other platforms.

    65. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, a free market means minimal government intervention. In my opinion, consumers should be able to voluntarily make a choice. I do, I use WMP, iTunes, and VideoLan for playing media. Each of these cost me $0. There was plenty of competition. I tried a variety of media players and kept the best three that I found. Back when WMP wasn't as good I used Real Player and Winamp, but now with WMP I find both of those alternatives less optimal. Incidentally, I have never paid more than $0 for media playback software, and I don't plan to do so unless the free alternatives (of which there are many) fall short of what is available in non-free versions. As a consumer, I'm pretty happy about the $0 situation...

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    66. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I still don't think Microsoft has a monopoly. If it does, it sure isn't leveraging it by providing products at $0.

      What you are saying is that other, better products would exist if someone could figure out a way to tell all the stupid people how much better they were. You are saying that if someone knew how to properly advertise a better media player, people would pay for it.

      How can we blame the lack of creativity of advertisers on Microsoft? C'mon. That's rediculous. It's almost as rediculous as blaming the lack of demand for a better media player on Microsoft. They provide WMP with Windows. Any OS that I've used in the past 10 years has included some way of playing media, and all have been marginal. WMP is the best attempt I've seen yet.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    67. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, as I recall RTF has been supported in every version of Word I've used back to version 2.x.

      Similarly, all current versions of Office support backward compatible saving to previous versions, as well as exporting to HTML and PNG, etc.

      Users choose to use the proprietary formats if they want the special features they provide. If you are OK with a standard format, then use RTF or PNG or HTML. Creating a very useful file format is part of the design of the software, and part of Microsoft's profit seeking goal orientation. It is also in Microsoft's best interest to support open standards such as HTML, RTF, and PNG, which it does. Windows Media format is patented and proprietary, as is GIF and Quicktime.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    68. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Users choose to use the proprietary formats if they want the special features they provide

      That is not true. Most users do not consiously choose to use any specific format, they use whatever the default is in a piece of software and are highly unaware of the consequences, and why should they.

      > Creating a very useful file format is part of the design of the software, and part of Microsoft's profit seeking goal orientation.

      It is only usefull for locking your customers into your software, it is not usefull as a design goal for any other reasons. Developing a flexible, extendible and open format is in the direct interest of the consumer however.
      Such a format does in no way stop functional innovation, it allows compatability BY DEFAULT.

      And of course it is part of their proffit seeking, but that doesn't make it anywhere valid.
      Robbery is in the interest of the proffit seekign goals of some criminal organistations, does that make it valid?

      Also, MS supports open formats because they have to in order to let people communicate at all. If it were upto them, they wouldn't support those.

      Fact is that it hurts both the consumer and the competition, and because of the fact that MS has a monopoly position, they are not allowed to do that by law.

      > Windows Media format is patented and proprietary, as is GIF and Quicktime.

      Yeah, but Unisys/IBM are not leveraging a monopoly in another market in order to force everyoen into using gif, and nor is Apple trying to do that with regards to Quicktime. Besides, as a private user I can license the patents from Unisys/IBM if I want to play with my own gif software and publish the resulting pictures, they do not force me to use their software for it. (the lock-in issue)

      This may be very hard to understand, but the behavior and having a monopoly themselves can be fully legal, but the combination is illegal.

    69. Re:Nice to see some backbone by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      They haev been declared a monopoly by the US and EU legal systems, and having 90% of the desktop market makes them a monopoly in any definition of that word, what makes you believe they aren't? And what would define a monopoly in your strange world then?
      Not leveraging it? It has been proven in court that they do. Again, what makes you think they don't?

      And I was not saying that it would be enough to advertise creatively and get people to know your product, I was arguing that that IS NOT ENOUGH. Starting to wonder if you actually read what people write...

      You have to have a product that is utterly superior and that offers a feature the consumer can't do without.

      No matter how creative your advertising, as long as the $0 piece of junk MS bundles with Windows is sufficient for most users, you have NO CHANCE.
      Bundling such things with Windows directly destroys the market for competition and is leveraging the Windows monopoly. You may not like that, but it is how the law defines it.

      Now please read carefully and go read the laws regarding fair competitiona and publications about their history if you want a deeper insight into why exactly the kind of behavior that MS is employign is hurting customers and society as a whole, history has a long list of precedents.
      Untill that or untill you actually put some thought into the matter I guess I am better off stopping my replies.

    70. Re:Nice to see some backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Lack of any viable competition is what gave Microsoft the ability to make consumers and OEMs pay for Windows on every machine even when the consumer didn't want it. Don't even try to tell me that consumers haven't been harmed. Whenever competition is scarce, there is harm. Some monetary, and some through lack of innovation since newcomers can't get into the market due to the tactics of the monopolist.

    71. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What about Linux, Ximian, MacOs, etc? There is plenty of competition. In fact, it's odd that I have to mention this on Slashdot, but I use Linux for some stuff that Microsoft doesn't do very well. Also, I bought some PCs from Dell recently w/o any OS installed.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    72. Re:Nice to see some backbone by HuguesT · · Score: 1


      > If Microsoft software is so bad,
      > why doesn't someone create some that is close?

      First there is a lot of software out there that is a lot better than anything Microsoft has ever written. Did Microsoft write the software that controls the Space Shuttle? I don't think so. This software has been audited bytecode by bytecode and simply *works*. Did Microsoft write the software that controls nuclear power plants? same story.

      If you mean desktop kind of software, what about OS/X? Try it for a while, it is a 100 times better than Windows, hands down.

      Myself I think Mozilla is much much better than IE. You should try it some time.

      Second because Microsoft won't let you. Seriously.

      Look at the Go story today. If any company looks like someone is writing a piece of software in which Microsoft is interested in, they will pull every stop to kill it, and they have (netscape, etc). At the moment Microsoft is trying very hard to kill open-source software, you'd be blind not to notice it, between all the memos, all the shady SCO stuff, all the bad press Microsoft is trying to give OSS at every turn.

      Third because Microsoft has billions in the bank and can bring resources to bear that no one else can, when they really want it they can take an existing piece of software by company Z, clone it, improve on it a bit on the edges (easy when you know there is a market and a blueprint) and bundle it. Case closed.

    73. Re:Nice to see some backbone by rnd() · · Score: 1
      I haven't used OSX much, but the only reason is because it won't work on the x86 hardware that I already own.

      I do use Mozilla, and I think it is in many ways much better than IE. I like the tabbed browsing feature and the automatic popup blocking (though IE does this when you have the google toolbar).

      I hate to say it, but by the time IE "beat" Netscape, it had been superior for several versions. Back at IE1, IE was garbage, same with 2.0. It wasn't until 3.0 until the two were roughly tied, but Netscape still had the edge. Netscape 4.0, however was extremely bloated and buggy. IE4 was bloated but it actually worked pretty well. By the time Microsoft released IE5, enough people realized this and Netscape's numbers had begun to rapidly decline.

      Netscape made some stupid decisions:

      decided not to support vbscript

      decided not to support PNG graphics

      didn't fix software bugs

      decided not to fully support CSS (web development books from the 4.0 era SLAM Netscape and praise IE)

      All of these factors combined, not Microsoft's slow and steady ability to improve a lousy product (1.0) and make it a good one (6.0) are responsible for Netscape's decline.

      I never even heard anyone use the phrase "internet explorer" until just a couple of years ago. Before that every web browser was "Netscape". Netscape shot itself in the foot, Enron style, and the blame lies only with Netscape.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  8. Still chump change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Half a billion dollars is nothing to MS if they are allowed to continue their practices.

    Thats just cost of operating to Bill.

    1. Re:Still chump change by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so, if you make 100K per year, you will have no problem giving me a grand right? I mean, it is chump change compared to what you make annually.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Still chump change by Hentai · · Score: 1

      If it's that or kick me out of your house where I make all my money, and there aren't that many people asking for the thousand, yeah, actually, it's no problem.

      If I have nothing to lose by NOT giving you the thousand, than why am I talking to a pleb?

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    3. Re:Still chump change by toopc · · Score: 1
      so, if you make 100K per year, you will have no problem giving me a grand right? I mean, it is chump change compared to what you make annually.

      The compariosn doesn't hold up when the sums become huge. A $1000 is meaningful if you only have $100K. Maybe it means you can't get that big screen TV this year, or take that trip to Disney.

      But if you have $56 billion, $500 million isn't going to change your plans at all. What can you do with $56 billion that you can't do with $55.5 billion? Esp. when you're bringing in a $1 billion a month. Sure, it'll annoy you on principle, but you're still getting the big screen TV and taking the family to Disney.

    4. Re:Still chump change by KingJoshi · · Score: 1

      I will gladly give you a thousand if I can continue to have access to YOUR money.

      Microsoft is illegally using their monopoly position to make more money and attempting to leverage their monopolies to create monopolies other markets. Percentagewise and considering how much money they will continue to have in the bank, this is not a significant punishment. Especially since this is not the first time they've done this. They continually acted this way and never has a fine or punishment been sufficient to make them change their behavior. The EU$500 question is, will this be enough.

      I doubt it.

      --
      In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
    5. Re:Still chump change by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If I'm a contract killer with 20million in the bank from past murders, and I make an average of 100k a year. Your prosecuting me for the murders I've commited and darn, I wasn't able to convince you to accept coupons in lieu of the one grand fine. I guess I'd live with it yeah ;)

      As for picking some random chump and slapping a grand on them, it's done all the time, it's called a tax break. This is just proof it doesn't cost much more to buy a license to kill.

  9. Fines are nice, by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but does this hurt MicroSoft's ability (and willingness) to do the same behaviour again and again?

    Doubtful.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:Fines are nice, by Bagels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. Because it sets a precedent, so Microsoft can be sued for the same behavior again and again, until the behavior ceases.

      --
      --- Bwah?
    2. Re:Fines are nice, by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      but does this hurt MicroSoft's ability (and willingness) to do the same behaviour again and again?

      No, because they are getting away with it from their point of view. $500 million...sheesh.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    3. Re:Fines are nice, by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What behavior is this? All Microsoft is guilt of is creating software that people like. I dread having to install Real Player on my computer. It pops up all sorts of adware for Real.com.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    4. Re:Fines are nice, by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      but does this hurt MicroSoft's ability (and willingness) to do the same behaviour again and again?

      I think it will. Maybe not THIS time, but say they get slapped by 4 countries this way, all of a sudden it's 2B USD, it may not be much, it won't be enough to bring them to their knees, but it gets the message across that they're not going to get away for free. It may not be a big fine, to them, but it's a fair enough fine that if they get busted a few more times it'll start to make a dent, and they'll be forced to change their ways before someone else comes knockin'.

      -matt

    5. Re:Fines are nice, by Fuzzy+Bo · · Score: 1

      "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." - popularly attributed to the late Senator Everett Dirksen

  10. just curious by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why would MS have to comply? Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore? I know MS sells a lot in europe.... but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?

    or is there some international law that says MS MUST comply?

    not a troll, just some questions, as IANAL.

    1. Re:just curious by DR+SoB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking the same thing. I was also thinking "What if Bill Gates gave everyone the finger, and dumped all his stock?" Imagine what would happen to today's economy if Bill was pissed off enough to dump everything?

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    2. Re:just curious by olivierva · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MS would never do that, it would only help the switch to Linux of a complete continent

    3. Re:just curious by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would love to see them take a hike, but even they are not stupid enough to quit playing in Europe. Eventually, they'll make up the fined money with slightly higher prices somewhere. As someone else said, it's simply the cost of doing business, which is a lot like what the Mafia used to say when one of them was arrested by the Feds.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    4. Re:just curious by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has companies in most of EU that has a turn-over which are much higher than that little fine.

      Why should they leave one of their biggest and most lucrative markets ?

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    5. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both would be hurt.. why do we have to choose one or the other? If both are hurt is that better for MS or for EU - or just bad for both? Personally I wouldnt mind getting rid of MS from Europe, just as long as we have time to teach ppl how to switch to something else.

    6. Re:just curious by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2, Informative
      why would MS have to comply? Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore? I know MS sells a lot in europe.... but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?
      Microsoft would have to be run by a bunch of muppets to do that. The $600 Million fine represents 3 Million copies of Windows XP Home sold at $200 a piece that they have to sell. I'm sure there are more then 3 Million computers in Europe for them to make back their money eventually. However, if they pulled out completely, there would be millions of users paying to develop Open Source alternatives, which would help their biggest enemies.
    7. Re:just curious by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have it backwards. If they don't pay up, they'll not be able to trade in the EU at all. That'd be more than an 'irritant'. They'd also face even larger fines for non-compliance and in extreme cases BG could face extradition and trial (it'll never get that far though).

      The european market is worth a hell of a lot more than they're being fined - they'll pay up, just to protect the right to sell in that market. Can you imagine the knock-on effects of not being able to sell to the EU? We'd develop our own apps and OS (or use one that someone had conveniently written and given away free...), that'd become the defacto standard in Europe, and would murder the MS monopoly elsewhere because they couldn't force Office upgrades on people any more... Aint gonna happen - BG isn't that stupid.

    8. Re:just curious by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore?

      Yes. And also give up what 30-40% of their bottom-line.. Which is a LOT more than that puny fee.

      but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?

      Microsoft would be killed by it. Several hundred million europeans would be forced to switch OS and application software.
      That'd get the Linux ball rolling, and how!

    9. Re:just curious by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heck, with Microsoft out of the way, the economy would totally boom, as companies would be free to innovate in the tech realm without the fear of Microsoft stealing their ideas then crushing them.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    10. Re:just curious by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Microsoft has some significant assets in the E.U., I'm sure these assets could be frozen and seized if there was reason to believe the fine was not going to be paid.

      Whether these assets, when liquidated, are worth more or less 500,000,000 quid is another topic, but their value must still be significant.

    11. Re:just curious by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1, Redundant

      that's an interesting idea, but unlikely.

      If MS flatly refuses to comply and 'pulls out it's european opperations'- it would have to do it FAST (because the EU could cease there (european)holdings if they thought they were trying to evade a court judgement), and even if sucessful the EU could attempt extridition of the funds from the US microsoft (weither or not the US would actually do that leaves to be seen, but the treaties for these extriditions are in place)

      Even in the scenario where they mannage to pull out and the US dosen't honor extradition; the EU dosen't loose it's microsoft products, they don't 'self-destruct', they just cannot be updated to new purchased versions, piracy runs rampant (perhaps with government sanctions: Since the product is not a legal peice of software in the EU)- and over several years the slow change to another system takes place.

      The EU becomes a nation that is either running several years old MS oses, or non-MS oses, and is surviving- that's a scary thought to MS, which is why they won't do it.

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    12. Re:just curious by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      But what is preventing another MS to rise?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    13. Re:just curious by Hassman · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be funny. Too bad there are numerous SEC laws that prevent that from happening. Anytime Willy wants to sell some stock he has to have it approved and go through a bunch of red tape. And then he can't sell more than X shares at a time...

      I'm not sure on all of the rules, but they do exist to protect the 'common' investor.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    14. Re:just curious by xargoon · · Score: 0

      1. Microsoft pulls out of EU
      2. Change copyright law
      3. ???
      4. Profit!!

    15. Re:just curious by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're joking, right? Could you imagine the panic that would ensue if Microsoft tanked in one night? My god, it would be like the apocalypse hit Wall Street.

      The economy is not all about good products and services being dealt at a fair price. In fact, it's 99% about confidence that that's what's happening. And an AWFUL lot of people are confident that that is what Microsoft is doing. If that confidence was suddenly undermined, the ensuing whirlpool could take an awful lot down the drain before things got back under control. Microsoft needs to be brought down to size the way IBM was - competition needs to wittle it down slowly to the point where it's size and market power reflect the quality and value of its offerings. A sudden disastrous strike taking it out could have horrible consequences.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    16. Re:just curious by mog007 · · Score: 1

      The international community can't recognize Microsoft as a government entity, because it isn't one. If Microsoft's European branch were to suddenly declare chapter 11, or the European equivalent, then nothing happens. Microsoft could pack up and leave Europe, but the EU, even if it were a military entity as well as mostly fiancial, wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The only way this could be an issue would be for Microsoft to stop selling stuff in Europe, but then moving to Africa and exporting everything, then the EU could justify an action to the UN.

    17. Re:just curious by spells · · Score: 1

      and in extreme cases BG could face extradition and trial

      1. MS fined 500M
      2. ???
      3. Bill Gates extradited to europe for trial.

      It's always that number 2 that's the problem, isn't it? ;)

    18. Re:just curious by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, people would buy it right back up... Bill doesn't own all that much anymore, the market would absorb it, the price might fall for a while, but MSFT corp would use some of its cash to buy back enough shares to keep investors interested.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    19. Re:just curious by cmowire · · Score: 1

      He couldn't.

      In order to sell *everyting* he owns of Microsoft, somebody needs to be able to buy. This is normally covered up by market makers, specialists, etc. but with the percentage of the company he owns, they'd offer him a small fraction of what his shares were worth because he was dealing in such a huge block. You can't divest that many shares of stock that quickly.

    20. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      why would MS have to comply? Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore? I know MS sells a lot in europe.... but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?

      A suggestion in that case: Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain each chip in one billion euro, and with that money they buy Apple Computer. MacOS X is ported to x86 within 6 months and made open source. Lets say 200 million tax payers, that makes about 25 Euro per tax payer. Alternatively, IBM gets a contract to make LOTS of 970s, and Apple provides every government agency in Europe with eMacs at cost. I guess you could build 20 million identical eMacs at $300 each easily if you leave out everything that is non-essential.

      Bye bye, Microsoft. Bye, bye, Intel.

    21. Re:just curious by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You forgot "if you're Apple or offering OSS-based solutions" on 4.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    22. Re:just curious by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      actually the employment law and tax codes in most European jurisdictions make it extremely difficult for a multinational to just pack up shop and leave, at least without incurring significant costs.

    23. Re:just curious by pubjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why would MS have to comply? Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore?

      The European market is about the same size as the US one at least in terms of overall size. So they are not just going to say bye to that...

      but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?

      Microsoft. By a loooooong way.

    24. Re:just curious by m0nk3ym1nd · · Score: 1

      Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean it isn't possible that MS pays to have their memes -- such as the parent's "Who really sufferes if MSFT is attacked?" -- inserted into otherwise-hostile spheres of influence

      But since we've all fed the troll anyway, here's my handful:

      Microsoft is a tollbooth on legitimate innovation.

      The good news is how much faster traffic moves when the tollbooth is finally removed.

    25. Re:just curious by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? Microsoft is losing on the Asian market, so why whould they ever think of abandoning the EU???? Nothing last forever, including the MS monopoly.

    26. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that there are other people who make most of the day-to-day decisions at Microsoft, I doubt they'd want to put Gates on trial anyway. Balmer would probably be the one they'd go after.

    27. Re:just curious by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure MS keep at least some of their money in european bank accounts. Their customers aren't going to wire the money to an american bank account, and their suppliers and staff won't want paying from an american bank account either.

      They do have offices in europe, which are probably worth a fair bit, and these offices have lots of computers and other bits and pieces, which are probably also worth something. So the courts would grab those and sell them off to pay the fine.

      Also, europe is about the same size as the US at the moment. After 1st May, when the new members join, it will be a lot bigger, so we are talking about a fairly sizeable proportion of MS's income. A lot more than EUR500m anyway.

      If MS were to go in EU, then the likes of SuSE and Mandrakesoft would move in very quickly to fill the gap, and it would give them the perfect base to take on the rest of the world as well.

      If MS were to do a runner, they would be effectively unable to enforce their copyrights and any money they made would go straight to paying the fines anyway, so it isn't going to stop people from using MS software if they want to.

      So, on balance, they probably won't say goodbye to EU.

    28. Re:just curious by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Imagine what would happen to today's economy if Bill was pissed off enough to dump everything?

      He couldn't. First, he would have notify the public and then his portfolio would plummet before he could sell them.

      And even if he wasn't forced to notify the public before he sold, he wouldn't be able to sell very much. You have to remember that a company is only worth something because 99% of the shareholders aren't willing to sell below a certain price.

    29. Re:just curious by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      The european market is worth a hell of a lot more than they're being fined - they'll pay up, just to protect the right to sell in that market.

      So you have to wonder, given that MS can set prices at will, how much extra padding could be built into every copy of Windows and Office sold in the EU to make up the fine.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    30. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine the knock-on effects of not being able to sell to the EU? We'd develop our own apps and OS

      Why do you think that the German government has been throwing money at Free Software developers to get a KDE equivelent to Outlook? Every country would like to be completely self-sufficient, it's certainly possible with software.

    31. Re:just curious by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      BG could face extradition and trial

      Nope. BD has not done anything illegal. Miocrosoft Inc. has.

    32. Re:just curious by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Failure to pay up would result in the confiscation of assets as well. The one big asset up for grabs: copyright of MS products.

      Thus, a failure to pay up could see the copyright over MS products in Europe revoked, making it open-season for pirates.

      Note that this would still be an option for the EU even if Microsoft packed its bags and went home. In fact, it would be even more desirable then.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    33. Re:just curious by unmuzzled+and+mean · · Score: 1
      Europe would just become like China and everyone would use unlicensed software.

      Though I'd hope they'd move fully to Free Software.

    34. Re:just curious by plj · · Score: 1

      competition needs to wittle it down slowly to the point where it's size and market power reflect the quality and value of its offerings

      You mean when it's forced to file chapter 11?

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    35. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore?

      IF only!

    36. Re:just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Can you imagine the knock-on effects of not being able to sell to the EU? We'd develop our own apps and OS (or use one that someone had conveniently written and given away free...), that'd become the defacto standard in Europe, and would murder the MS monopoly elsewhere because they couldn't force Office upgrades on people any more...

      I'd imagine something more along the lines of the EU not recognizing Microsoft's patents and engaging in what would have been copyright violations. It's worked for the United States' publishing industry in the past.

    37. Re:just curious by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

      why would MS have to comply? Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore? I know MS sells a lot in europe.... but who would be more injured by such a move, MS or the EU?

      or is there some international law that says MS MUST comply?

      not a troll, just some questions, as IANAL.

      Wow you really don't know??, why not suggest M$ give up the US market while you're at it, man do you have any idea just how big (people/ecconomy wise) the EU is?? hmm I guess you don't.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    38. Re:just curious by oolon · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft did that the EU could pass a law to say its ok to copy microsoft software. Removing yourself from a market in general is bad cos it allows competitors to get a foothold. After all its better that people use your software (even if copied) than buy a competitors product.

      James

    39. Re:just curious by Mindcry · · Score: 1

      you seem to be making the mistake of thinking the EU can do without MS... no more MS there would cause a ton of problems for anyone having to deal with computers, not just MS...

      developing our own apps is nice and all, but someone has to pay for dev, and the companies over there need to keep being able to do business as normal the entire time...

      its like the content creators and broadcasters, they fight over anything and it escalates, everyone loses... your comment suggests that (ie) the satelite companies should just create their own programs (which would take months) and stay off air while losing millions... not to mention they don't own the proper equipment etc and would have to buy it, whereas before they didnt need all that extra overhead (compare that to replacing stuff that was getting the job done to paying to have someone else redo the same work, and transitioning from one system to another etc)

    40. Re:just curious by dustmite · · Score: 1

      That'd get the Linux ball rolling, and how!

      And the Mac ball too! Macs are already very common in some (Northern) European countries.

    41. Re:just curious by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      "Microsoft needs to be brought down to size the way IBM was - competition needs to wittle it down slowly to the point where it's size and market power reflect the quality and value of its offerings. A sudden disastrous strike taking it out could have horrible consequences."

      Aw come on man, I'd like to see it happen before I die. Their products are so overvalued, even at a quickly paced gradual step-down it would take 100 years to bring their power/wealth to the point where it should be.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    42. Re:just curious by k_head · · Score: 1

      This is why IMHO MS is the number one target of Al quida. One suitcase nuclear weapon detonated in redmond (a soft target) would crush the US economy and severly hurt the global economy.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    43. Re:just curious by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      "So you have to wonder, given that MS can set prices at will, how much extra padding could be built into every copy of Windows and Office sold in the EU to make up the fine."

      Like waving a red flag at a bull. The next action would be for monopoly price gouging and the fine would be be some multiple of the illegal gains, perhaps retroactive to some date in the far past.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    44. Re:just curious by five18pm · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right? Could you imagine the panic that would ensue if Microsoft tanked in one night? My god, it would be like the apocalypse hit Wall Street.

      Stock market is not the economy. People will still survive, live and even trade! We would just get rid of bunch of finance pricks.

    45. Re:just curious by Tom · · Score: 1

      Couldnt they just say 'okay, BYE' and not sell in Europe anymore?

      Yes, and in addition to the other commenters, I'd like to point out that Microsoft is a registered company in most european countries.

      M$ USA can just let them hang to dry, but M$ the corporation stands to lose them. Not just the revenue, but the assets as well. I'm sure the EU would really like a corporation trying to play hardball, just to have an opportunity to show them that they can close them down, confiscate everything they own, and sue them for some ridiculous amount just to make sure it hurts.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    46. Re:just curious by BagMan2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure you have all sorts of great ideas that you just can't seem to do because of Microsoft...damn them, damn them all....moron

    47. Re:just curious by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It would not be that bad.

      If it happened litterally overnight it would probably cause a downward spike as peeople worried about who else it could happen to. A few months later they would get over it and that is not long enough for the stock market to severly effect the real economy very much.

      Anyway it would not be overnight. Big companies have tanked over a period of a few years before, even very recently: GEC (renamed Marconi) went from being one of the biggest companies in the UK (smaller than MS but very big in terms of the UK) to the verge of bankruptcy. It did not do very much to change investors perceptions of the UK market (of course it contributed a bit to the hangover after the dot com bust).

      People hardly even notice unless a company actually goes bust or comes very close to it (not going to happen to MS thanks to the cash pile). Valuations can plummet and people hardly take notice: Glaxo Smithkline used to be worth about 180 billion pounds, about the same as the $260 billion MS is now. Glaxo is now worth barely half that and it has had little effect on people's perceptions of the market as a whole.

      If MS screwed up one major business (say OSes or Office) so badly it had to pull out of the business altogether, its value should be about the same amount (in relative and absolute terms both) as Glaxo's has: no big deal.

    48. Re:just curious by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough if Audi/VW suddenly goes bust my car doesn't stop running tomorrow and if it went wrong I could still get it fixed.

      It would only be a strange distorted market dominated by a predatory monopoly that would allow something like that should happen. So why should Microsoft tanking..er..er... OK I see.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    49. Re:just curious by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Where do you get the $200 figure from? The OEM version of XP Home sells for 56.27 before tax (roughly equivalent to $100) at Ebuyer in the UK. I imagine it costs rather less than that in bulk.

    50. Re:just curious by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about upgrades or full versions? Big difference. Buy.com is selling the Upgrade version for $100. And at $186 the complete version is pretty close to the $200 price tag.. Now, these were approximate prices I was guessing based on what I had last seen them selling for at BestBuy. As always, YMMV -- between the differences in currency, the discounts Dell and other computer makers get, and the number of people upgrading versus buying full versions.

    51. Re:just curious by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      They're OEM versions, for use on new computers. They are just a CD and a licence; no box and possibly no manual. That's what most home Windows users get.

    52. Re:just curious by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. My point was not that I had the exact statistics -- because I didn't want to sit down and figure out how many of each type of license they sell, and how that affects their bottom line in europe. I was just making a generalized point that there are a lot more then 3 million (or even 12 million which is what it works out to @ $50 a license) computers in Europe, so Microsoft is not going ot be sunk. But, remember, we have to add in all microsoft products. Microsoft sells Windows, Office, games, even hardware -- which is probably much more then $50 a PC.

  11. E500M? We got that covered. by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are the chances Bill G. & Co. will pay off the fine by buying cheap laptops in NYC and selling them in Europe while dodging the VAT?

  12. No Media Player! by LilMikey · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary failed to mention that they will be forced to release a version of Windows without Media Player and 'encourage' the use of other media players. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

    --
    LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    1. Re:No Media Player! by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've got no problems with MediaPlayer per se, I just prefer the old one :)

      Media Player Classic 6.4.8.0

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re:No Media Player! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What media player do you use on Windows? How is it better than WMP?

      I've tried a lot of them, and I use two: WMP and VideoLan. RealPlayer stinks and installs annoying Real.com adware popups.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    3. Re:No Media Player! by rokzy · · Score: 1

      apart from Real's general spyware BS, the only reason WMP has an advantage over other players is that MS has access to the OS source code.

      MS is being forced to open up and give other players a fair chance. and when they can all compete on equal terms, WMP won't look so good in comparison any more.

    4. Re:No Media Player! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What is MS doing that others can't? The performance of Real vs WMP isn't different, but the overall quality of the products is. WMP is better designed software and uses better codecs. You don't need top secret OS hooks to accomplish that.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    5. Re:No Media Player! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old version is still bundled with Windows. Under the /program files/windows media player directory you will find mplayer2.exe. Best version imo.

    6. Re:No Media Player! by LilMikey · · Score: 1

      Media Player Classic isn't actually an old version of MS Media Player. IMO, it's about as close to mplayer as you're going to get in Windows.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    7. Re:No Media Player! by LilMikey · · Score: 1

      All I want is a player that 1) Doesn't try to do any stupid skinning crap. I have yet to find a way to show just the video in the window... no menus, buttons, bars, or other assorted crap. Almost every media player I've used (PowerDVD, MPC, Mplayer, Xine, Ogle, WinDVD) let you hide the GUI and show the damn movie... 2) Doesn't 'phone home' constantly. The damn thing is always connecting to the internet for something, be it the opening web page, codec downloads, rights management, etc. The only thing it should be getting from the internet is media and only when I say so.

      While it may be the case that you can turn off all skinning, codec downloading, rights management, web page loading crap in Media Player I haven't been able to do these things to my satisfaction. Even if I could find all the necessary buttons and switches I would still be suspicious that the thing is telling someone about something I'm doing with my media. The complete disregards the fact the Joe User will never even realize his player is doing these things or how green the grass is on the other side and happily give MS complete control over his media 'experience.'

      I prefer Media Player Classic if I'm forced to use windows or MPlayer under Linux. I'm fairly confident the people behind these softwares aren't colluding to rip me off, stab me in the back, or take control of my machine. BTW, both play Quicktime and Real media.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    8. Re:No Media Player! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Those are reasonable requests. One of these days, someone will figure out that they can build such a product and sell it for a profit.

      Have you tried VideoLan ? I like it a lot, not sure if it plays DVDs though, but it might.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    9. Re:No Media Player! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Well, not counting mplayer of course.

    10. Re:No Media Player! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there's any problem with the "quality" of RealPlayer or it's codecs -- it's actually got a few nice features. The only issue is the addon spyware/spam features.

      QuickTime for Windows absolutely blows because it's running on some System 7 emulator. (But even the OS X version isn't what anyone would call "really nice" -- it's very basic with a borderline annoying UI.)

    11. Re:No Media Player! by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      VLC does play DVD's but (on Mac OS X at least) the DVD playback is a bit buggy and can crash before getting to the actual movie at times. Some random artifacts as well. But once it gets going it generally keeps going.
      Replaced Quicktime for me. Defiantly recommend.

    12. Re:No Media Player! by neko9 · · Score: 1

      Media Player Classic is the best. WiMP and RealPlayer - they both stink. hmm, no wait... Real stinks little bit more.

    13. Re:No Media Player! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You're right. I use iTunes (and buy songs through it) because I like the selection. I wish companies other than MS would do usability research for Windows software.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    14. Re:No Media Player! by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      I use 100% Linux now, and mplayer is my choice on Linux... however, Media Player Classic is simply a better media player than mplayer... at least as of now.

      Both are free and open source, but Media Player Classic performs better in all categories.

      I hated how Windows Media Player got all slow and bloated... Media Player Classic shares only the efficient interface of the old Windows Media Player... everything else is new open source code.

  13. vitamin cartel? by Blob+Pet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can you even say that phrase with a straight face and not think of Fred Flintstone as a Columbian drug lord?

    --
    "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
  14. Yay! by General+Sherman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's good to know that European courts aren't as flawed as our American ones.

    It almost restores your faith in humanity. Almost.

    --
    - Sherman
    1. Re:Yay! by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      In this case, it wasn't the US court system that was flawed, it was the Bush Administration. Miserable failure indeed.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    2. Re:Yay! by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not court. It is an administrative penalty.

      Actually some background:

      There was a string of high profile EU comission decisions to be overturned or stayed by the court.

      As a result this time the comission is doing it by the book. This is the reason why it is asking that all competition authorities in all states agree unanimously on the penalties and the penalties are OK not just per EU statutes, but per the statutes of the individual states.

      So, to summarize, they are making an example out of MSFT. They want to show that they can take a big fish and it will not be able to wiggle out so that the small fish do not rely on the courts next time.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:Yay! by General+Sherman · · Score: 1

      It was not the Bush administration, in fact, I'm not even sure Bush knows what Microsoft makes, nor the issues.

      --
      - Sherman
    4. Re:Yay! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, the case was over entirely different issues from the US case. Microsoft got screwed in the EU case.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    5. Re:Yay! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      It was indeed the Bush administration. Under Clinton, the Justice Department was demanding that Microsoft be split up into two separate companies. When Bush came in, his JD settled for a slap on the wrist and a "be about your business."

    6. Re:Yay! by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 4, Informative

      The European Commision isn't actually a court. In fact, several of the EC's antitrust decisions have been overturned by the real courts (such as the European Court of Justice) in recent years.

    7. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - they'd never do anything bad in Europe. And as Lenny once said - no one who speaks German could be evil.

      According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who covers the E.U. for the Telegraph, fellow journalist Hans-Martin Tillack, the Brussels correspondent for Germany's Stern magazine, was arrested and held for 10 hours without counsel by police in Belgium after his office and home were raided by six officers.

      Pritchard said police seized Tillack's computers, address books and archive of files "in a move that stunned Euro-MPs."

      Tillack, who describes himself as a "pro-European federalist," said the raid on his equipment was triggered by a complaint from the E.U.'s anti-fraud office, OLAF.

      Tillack "was accused of paying money to obtain a leaked OLAF dossier two years ago, which he denies," Pritchard wrote.

    8. Re:Yay! by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      And your proof that this was a direct result of Bush becoming president is...??

      I hear this a lot. And nobody ever backs it up with anything. Just bitching from liberals who still claim Bush "stole" the presidence as far as I can tell...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    9. Re:Yay! by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      indeed!!!!!! I'm happy to live at this side of the ocean for this, maybe one day I sue all you slashdotters who post using windows software.

    10. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton DOJ was begging to slap MS on the wrist and settle the case -- only Microsoft repeatedly refused. The original verdict was even delayed for several months so that MS could extend their wrist and take their pushishment.

      It was only after the appeals court threw out the Breakup Order, but refused to throw out the entire verdict, AND Bill Gates was demoted by the MS board of directors, that MS agreed to have the wrist slapped.

      I'm absolutely no fan of Bush, but I think the "convential wisdom" around here that Microsoft Settlement was politically motivated is crap.

    11. Re:Yay! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The US case was first aboud bundling IE, and in the later phase about bundling media player as well.

      Yeah, entirely different. Nothing even remotely similar... oh wait, it's the same thing.

    12. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good to know that European courts aren't as flawed as our American ones.

      Speaking as a Brit, I think that Europe is almost as bad as America, but our biases lie in different directions in a lot of instances.

    13. Re:Yay! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, competitors whining. IE is and was better than Netscape 4.x and I don't think MS should have to bundle an adware media player or not have one at all. It was all about whiney competitors.

    14. Re:Yay! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      And your proof that this is just bitching from liberals who still claim Bush "stole" the presidence(sic) is...??

      If you think that the Justice Department, like all branches of government, is not affected by politics, you're mistaken. The JD was trying to get MS broken up. A new JD comes in, takes over, and abandons that tract. It WAS political. The average republican wants government's hands out of business. The average democrat wants to regulate business. Guaranteed: A harsher penalty would have come down under a democratic administration. Bush is a republican. Therefore the lesser punishment is directly related to Bush becoming president and appointing his republican cabinet.

      You can argue if that's good or bad for yourself. To me it makes no difference. But you seem to be the only one making unbased political bitchings at somebody you know nothing about with absolutely no reasoning behind it except your BS statement that you "hear this a lot."

    15. Re:Yay! by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      And your proof that this is just bitching from liberals who still claim Bush "stole" the presidence(sic) is...??

      That the only time I see this argument is people bashing Bush, and no proof is ever given.

      You can argue if that's good or bad for yourself. To me it makes no difference. But you seem to be the only one making unbased political bitchings at somebody you know nothing about with absolutely no reasoning behind it except your BS statement that you "hear this a lot."

      More bitching.. And still no more proof. I didn't say the statement was true or false, I simply asked for proof. Any proof. Even a little proof.

      NOTE: I don't accept *opinion* as proof.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    16. Re:Yay! by DotNetGuru · · Score: 1

      Atzanteol is right, this comes up over and over again... There's a good book called World War 3.0 that discusses the antitrust trial with Microsoft. It goes into lots of details from the side of the Justice department. It's an interesting read...

      If you read the book you learn this: Microsoft was in settlement agreements. Microsoft came to an agreement with the Justice Department, but the STATES vetoed it. It's in the book. Go read it. And we see that in the final outcome. The Justice Department OKed it, and some states didn't. Ultimately what all but one state was able to come to agreement?

      So it's entirely concevable the Gore Justice Department would have decided to settle in the end... After all who knows what the new verdict would have been, or what further appeals MS would have attempted.

    17. Re:Yay! by Karapet · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I'm not sure though. It's interesting that the really big antitrust rulings in the EU have been against corporations with heade offices outside the EU (Microsoft, H.LaRoche). One could argue that the commissioners are not subject to the same sort of pressures from member countries as they would be if "local" interests were involved. Someone in the know should analyse this to see if there's a trend.

  15. Make it 50 Billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    500M is nothing to ms.

  16. Quote from Bill Gates... by iiioxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Cash okay..?" <while reaching for his wallet>

    1. Re:Quote from Bill Gates... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Well since $100 banknotoes are 0.0043 inches thick, Bills wallet would have to be at least 2196.6 feet thick to contain $613 million.

    2. Re:Quote from Bill Gates... by sharkey · · Score: 1

      "Smithers, my wallet's in my right front pocket."

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  17. The real question is ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    since they have they option, why aren't they imposing the maximum fine of 10 percent of annual turnover for the year before the decision, which for Microsoft would amount to $3.43 billion.

    With $53 billion in the coffers, $613 million is a big ol' slap on the wrist.

    1. Re:The real question is ... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      But it still hurts.

      How would you like to write out that check?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:The real question is ... by rokzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      jeez, you're the 5000th person to say this.

      don't any of you understand that this isn't THE END.

      if MS doesn't change, they get another $600 million fine. and another. and another. and guess what, 53 billion is a lot, but it's still finite.

    3. Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With 53 billion in my account, i think i could sqeeze that out.

    4. Re:The real question is ... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      You don't get 53 billion in an account by casually sending in 500 million in "taxes" when you don't have to. No matter how much you've got, that still has got to hurt.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    5. Re:The real question is ... by thogard · · Score: 1

      Thats not just a big static pile of cash. It gets lots added to it every single day. They could recover this fine by simply printing XP Second Edition on all the OS boxes leaving the factory.

    6. Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if MS doesn't change, they get another $600 million fine. and another. and another. and guess what, 53 billion is a lot, but it's still finite.

      Yeah, so we'd only have to fine them, what, about eighty times before they start to worry, right? That's bound to make them think twice.

    7. Re:The real question is ... by rokzy · · Score: 1

      in case you didn't notice, punishments tend to increase dramatically for repeat offenders.

      e.g. you get caught speeding you get a fine. caught again, another fine. caught again, lose your license. caught again, go to jail.

    8. Re:The real question is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...
      are these $3.4 billion you cite 10% of the *worldwide* annual turnover or 10% of the turnover in the EU?
      I would expect the former and I'm not so very sure that the EU can fine for 10% of the worldwide one.
      So these 500M (?= 600M US$ ) is approximately 20% of the "maximum" you cite - and I think it's reasonable that Microsoft made something in this area of the worldwide turnover in the EU countries.
      OK, maybe MS made 30 or even 40% in the EU - so that's still at least half the amount the EU could have fined at maximum.
      And *that's* quite a large part :)

      Besides: even if fined 100% of the worldwide turnover last year MS would still have around US$20 Billion in 'cash'.
      And the EU wants to shut the first step in this case (second one being the courts) before the new countries come in this year - countries that would perhaps have a different point of view in this matter ('bought' with cheap MS licenses, perhaps)

    9. Re:The real question is ... by awol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ok so they have 53 billion in the coffers. How much of that would be needed to prop up the share price in the event that all thos options on the balance sheet went out of the money as the stock tanked on the news of a huge loss in market. Say the EU. Er, all of it and then some.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  18. At this rate.... by Schnapple · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At this rate Microsoft should go out business.... never!

    1. Re:At this rate.... by maunleon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why _SHOULD_ microsoft go out of business?

      It is one thing to aim for fairness, it is another thing to just be blinded by hate.

    2. Re:At this rate.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops... I accidently moderated you as over-rated. I'm posting to undo the moderation.

    3. Re:At this rate.... by grub · · Score: 1


      The fine isn't designed to drive MS out of business, it's a spanking to say "Smarten up, spoiled brat!"

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:At this rate.... by Schnapple · · Score: 1

      oh, I don't think MS should go out of business - hell, their technology is the reason I have a job. I was just quoting the Daily Show when MS was hit with that $1M/day fine until they fixed somethingorother - the quote was "At the rate of a million dollars a day they should go out of business.... NEVER!"

    5. Re:At this rate.... by Havokmon · · Score: 1
      Why _SHOULD_ microsoft go out of business?
      It is one thing to aim for fairness, it is another thing to just be blinded by hate.

      Exactly. We all are perfectly fine with the fact that Serenity Systems has recently released the latest verison of OS/2, which they call eComStation.

      Oh, you've never heard of eComStation?

      :P

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    6. Re:At this rate.... by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      Don't worry one day this happens without the help of the EU. Nothing is cheaper than free, like internet-explorer was to netscape and LINUX is to MS, you cannot stop LINUX, I cannot stop it either,although I don't like it yet.

    7. Re:At this rate.... by Lord+of+Ironhand · · Score: 1
      I think this problem will solve itself. If M$'s market share would one day be half of what it is today, it will have become less evil. Simply because it has to.

      Even if their software would still be inferior, far fewer people would actually hate Microsoft since they would simply have a real choice between using their software, or simply ignoring them.

    8. Re:At this rate.... by bADlOGIN · · Score: 1

      Here's a short list: For lying and stealing DOS For stealing code from Stac Electronics For stealing the NT kernel destroying Netscape via monopoly tactics even if AOL caved in. For pulling the same crap with Real Networks For ripping off customers and makeing "90%+ margins" on what is Insecure by Design. Seriously. I know we live in an Enron world and any given company is about as honest as the politicians they buy off, but just look at the track record. These guys are serious slimeballs. Period. And the list above doesn't even cover how they screwed over Apple, used university resources in the early days to pursue a commercial venture.

      --
      *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  19. Smart Reporters by rmohr02 · · Score: 4, Funny
    In Microsoft's view there is no reason it should be fined at all.
    Reporters seem to get smarter every day.
    1. Re:Smart Reporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, moderators too.

    2. Re:Smart Reporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In Microsoft's view there is no reason it should be fined at all.
      >
      >Reporters seem to get smarter every day.

      Yeah, what the hell are they doing getting both sides of the story anyways?

  20. The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says that the major reason for the fines is Microsoft's refusal to license information to competitors to ensure compatibility.

    In other words, the actual software that these laws protects is horrible stuff like RealOne and Quicktime. Open source projects can't afford to license things. I'll be even more impressed than I already am if Mplayer and the like can continue their higher quality in the face of such crappy capitalistic laws.

    1. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got to take exception with your classifying quicktime under 'horrible stuff'.

    2. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dummy

    3. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've got to take exception with with you. Are you some kind of Apple flunky? I've installed quicktime under Windows and I'll never do it again. I don't care how many movie trailers I mess. You can't even fully uninstall it. It's ugly and bloated. It's almost as bad as Real-Whatever, which I also refuse to install. As much as I hate Microsoft, I'm really glad for Media Player. I tell it to leave me allow and it does what I ask. I don't want anything extra running on my machine taking up memory and calling home for advertisments. Screw them.

    4. Re:The problem with Antitrust by spectecjr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got to take exception with your classifying quicktime under 'horrible stuff'.

      Given that it takes over the MIME type for (amongst other things) PNG images when it installs on Windows, and their implementation is more broken than IE's implementation, I'd consider it "horrible stuff".

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    5. Re:The problem with Antitrust by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Are you some kind of Apple flunky? I've installed quicktime under Windows and I'll never do it again. I don't care how many movie trailers I mess. You can't even fully uninstall it. It's ugly and bloated. It's almost as bad as Real-Whatever, which I also refuse to install."

      The problem you just described is Microsoft's own fault. It lies with "installing programs" and shared DLL files in the Registry. At the expense of being labelled a troll or a flamebait post, that doesn't happen with a "real" operating system (Unix, BSD (OS X), Linux). Say you want to remove a program on a Mac in OS X. Drag the program icon to the trash. *Poof*! Can Windows do that? Nope - and it should, right out of the retail box. Not even Norton SystemWorks can always get rid of DLL clutter even after "uninstalling" programs even in WinXP. Now that chaps my hide!

      So to recap, don't blame Apple for leaving items clogging up your registry after you tried deleting their "free" program. Send your complaint to Bill G. or Steve B. and demand that they clean up the Registry mess once and for all...and in a free update to their existing operating system before punking it to the industry in the form of Longhorn.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    6. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      On the off chance that you want to watch movie trailers while avoiding the train wreck that is Quicktime, I recommend Quicktime Alternative, Real Alternative, and Media Player Classic (which comes with both of the aforementioned).

      As for Windows Media Player... Well, it's passable. I used it for a while. But it uses too many resources for my liking. In any case, should you prefer it, the Alternatives I mentioned are codecs, so you should be able to watch .mov files in it, in theory.

    7. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragging QuickTime player to the trash does not remove all the "shared DLLs". Anyone who has used MacOS long enough to open the System directory can figure this out.

      (I swear, every time one of you Mac lusers open your mouths and start uttering technical banalities, I lose even more respect for you and your platform. You mental cripples don't even understand how your own platform works, but you'll babble on like shitheads anyway. At least Windows idiots don't run around inventing crap. No wonder the damn things only come with one button on the mouse. Also, QuickTime Player really sucks ass, even on OS X. After I spend $129 for an OS, Apple should not be spamming me with popups.)

    8. Re:The problem with Antitrust by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Dragging QuickTime player to the trash does not remove all the "shared DLLs". Anyone who has used MacOS long enough to open the System directory can figure this out."

      I use both Windows and OS X. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and that is why you are posting as an anonymous coward. OS X doesn't have DLLs so how can dragging it to the trash can not delete all of them in OS X when there were none to begin with? Try doing a Microsoft Search on "circular logic". You might learn something. But that might be asking for too much.

      "Also, QuickTime Player really sucks ass, even on OS X. After I spend $129 for an OS, Apple should not be spamming me with popups."

      No it [QuickTime - on Windows or OS X] doesn't [suck]. And you are complaining about pop ups? I certainly hope you aren't using IE as your browser of choice...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    9. Re:The problem with Antitrust by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      sorry, but that's a load of crap - Quicktime is deliberately designed to run processes at startup without asking. That's plain bad manners, and entirely Apple's fault.

    10. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      In other words, the actual software that these laws protects is horrible stuff like RealOne and Quicktime.

      That's the software that might benefit today. But the action isn't protecting specific software, other than incidentally. It's defending the principles of competition and interoperability, which is a far more important goal.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:The problem with Antitrust by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "sorry, but that's a load of crap - Quicktime is deliberately designed to run processes at startup without asking. That's plain bad manners, and entirely Apple's fault."

      But you can remove it. Try removing MSN Messenger from startup, pre SP1 WinXP. Quicklaunchers are commonplace with Windows programs; QuickTime is not alone in that manner. Try ICQ. Real Player. SETI@home. Norton AntiVirus. AOL/AIM. Mozilla. Microsoft Outlook. Microsoft Office. And even though you cannot see it, IE in the background does too.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    12. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you didn't get the point of my post at all.

      Antitrust law is SUPPOSED to defend consumers. And the software that has the best shot at being best for consumers and promoting interoperability is open source software, which gets shafted by this action.

      In other words, they're for competition provided that the competition is still soaking money from the public. Fuck that.

    13. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      Why are these other players not good in your eyes??????? Maybe this is what this case is all about, if MS didn't have the monopoly this software was maybe as good or better than MediaPlayer. I just have the feeling you are new to this IT world, sorry if I'm wrong.

    14. Re:The problem with Antitrust by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      In other words, the actual software that these laws protects is horrible stuff like RealOne and Quicktime.

      Or maybe good stuff like Samba? where the guys have to reverse engineer every little tweak to the SMB protocol.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    15. Re:The problem with Antitrust by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Actually, one of the key points where EU antitrust law is unsettled is what the purpose of antitrust law is.

      The US antitrust system is older, and so there are a bunch of court cases which establish that the Sherman Act protects consumers, but makes no attempt to protect competitors. It only provides a means for competitors to sue after the fact and recover triple damages. The courts have consistently decided that there is no direct protection provided to competitors or competition; if the monopolist can show a benefit to consumers, then the court supports the right of the monopolist to sell.

      EU law is much less well-established, and it isn't clear what the law means. In fact, the biggest single point which I expect to see argued in front of the Court of the First Instance and the ECJ is whether only consumers are protected by the act, or if competitors are protected as well. If the former, then the EC will lose this case, fine or no fine, and Microsoft will set a huge precedent protecting the company's ability to bundle new features into Windows. If the latter, then the feature extension Microsoft has engaged in over the years will be blocked in Europe.

    16. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Hitmouse · · Score: 1

      No it [QuickTime - on Windows or OS X] doesn't [suck]. And you are complaining about pop ups? I certainly hope you aren't using IE as your browser of choice...
      So let me follow this: "Apple's Quicktime pop-ups are good, and Microsoft is bad for not making IE block other companies' pop-ups." I think that is your argument.

    17. Re:The problem with Antitrust by fdobbie · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that OS X does have DLLs. They're called Mach-O dynamically linked shared libraries.

    18. Re:The problem with Antitrust by fdobbie · · Score: 1

      What processes does QuickTime run at startup? I know that iTunes runs one which sits there looking for iPod connections, but since it blocks and doesn't take up any processor time AT ALL unless you have an iPod, it's consuming all of a few hundred bytes in your process table and THAT'S IT.

    19. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're reading too much into it.
      There are DLL's, they are shared libraries. The system ones. But any app doesn't install their own DLL's into the system folder, all of it stays within the apps folder.

      When you want to delete the app you just delete the directory tree

    20. Re:The problem with Antitrust by fdobbie · · Score: 1

      I wish people would get off QuickTime's case. QuickTime's file format is fully documented, and it's actually quite a nice cross-platform media framework. The only thing that's "evil" is its reliance on closed-source codecs, but there's nothing particularly surprising with that. You could even write some open-source codecs for it! (There's an Ogg Vorbis one, I know someone's doing one for XviD, etc).

    21. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X does not have dynamically loadable libraries!? Kill yourself now, please.

    22. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      qttask.exe. I think it functions as a COM bridge to QuickTime for use with IE. It might also fuck with your file associations.

      The annoying thing is that if you remove it from your Run registry key, QuickTime just puts it back.

    23. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      And the software that has the best shot at being best for consumers and promoting interoperability is open source software, which gets shafted by this action.

      Do you have any evidence to support that, beyond your personal opinion? There are very few things that have been done well by OSS that haven't been done at least as well if not very much better by CSS, even by software written by Microsoft in some cases.

      Defending competition in the marketplace will naturally defend consumers, modulo minor bumps in the road. Having the courts set an agenda which promotes a specific product or philosophy, even one as apparently community-centric as OSS, comes with no such guarantees. If the open source approach is as superior a development philosophy as its advocates claim, then it will naturally win in a marketplace guaranteeing fair competition anyway.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    24. Re:The problem with Antitrust by mah! · · Score: 1
      You are probably confusing QuickTime Player with the QuickTime APIs and libraries which implement them

      QuickTime is the API which started affordable desktop video (nor all-software video editing like Premiere, FCP, etc., incidentally).

      QuickTime came out a couple of years before Mplayer, I think...

    25. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that it takes over the MIME type for (amongst other things) PNG images when it installs on Windows, and their implementation is more broken than IE's implementation, I'd consider it "horrible stuff".

      Bullshit, an absolute crock of shit, just about every other windows program does that. That is a fault of windows, not, a fault of quicktime!

    26. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no other Windows programs do that, and you are sad, delusional Mac zealot. Why can't you accept that QuickTime Player is 3rd rate, invasive, spammy software?

    27. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      Look, it's quite simple.

      I'm not asking for promotion of open source. I'm asking for Antitrust laws to make the market fair to open source as well as to companies. And licensing doesn't accomplish this, since it requires payment that open source developers cannot make. This leaves the OSS world stuck between ignoring the closed standards or hacking them, neither of which is remotely fair competition compared to the companies that can easily afford to license it.

    28. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying IE doesn't do that?

    29. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      I've been using Windows for some 10 years or so, and various Linux distros for about 3.

      While I mildly prefer Windows Media Player to Quicktime and RealOne, this is beside the point. They all suck. Badly. The main reasons are that they're generally slower, less responsive, more bloated, and sometimes harder to set up with the required codecs than the players I recommend below. I'm thinking you must be new to the digital video world if you haven't experimented with players like Media Player Classic, Zoomplayer, and maybe some other ones for Windows, or Mplayer and VLC for ANY OS. Either that or you have really low standards in a player.

    30. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, IE doesn't try to display PNGs when I'm running Mozilla.

    31. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      My whole problem is that it DOESN'T protect Samba. They want to force MS to license tech. In other words, people who want to use it will have to pay for it. That kinda screws the OSS world. If it was up to me, I'd have the Antitrust people go farther, and require them to open up the interoperability info completely, so people like Samba wouldn't have to reverse engineer and wouldn't have to pay.

    32. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'll be even more impressed than I already am if Mplayer and the like can continue their higher quality in the face of such crappy capitalistic laws.

      I hate to break it to you, but the only reason mplayer is a viable alternative to things like Media Player, Real One and Quicktime is because it uses the Win32 DLLs in a very dubious (license-wise) manner. The Win32 DLLs written by the "crappy capitalistic companies" like Microsoft, Real and Apple (all of which have released open source software, by the way).

    33. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that explains their success... But I still feel that mplayer blows away the other three. And my original point is that Antitrust law should protect exactly that kind of use, rather than possibly requiring payment. So you haven't really burst my bubble.

    34. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      But it's really not that simple; that's the point.

      Open source may be supported by volunteers, but the people who wrote the CSS software were doing it for money. The companies employing them need to get some return on that investment to be profitable and remain in business. In the capitalist world, which like it or not is where we live, that return comes from licensing revenue, amongst other things.

      Yes, this sucks for OSS, but it's not Microsoft's (or anyone else's, for that matter) fault that OSS projects choose to run on a non-financial model that gives them limited resources. Neither is it the court's job to disadvantage Microsoft for the benefit of OSS coders. It costs a significant amount of money to produce and maintain useful documentation for a complex interface, and while the courts might reasonably require Microsoft to make such documentation available at cost in the interests of fair competition, I see no reason they should require Microsoft to pay to produce it and then give it away for free because the open source world haven't found a source of funding to play by the same rules as everyone else in the business.

      I realise this is unfortunate for Joe OSS Developer, but there are two sides to every argument, and even big corporations have to be treated reasonably by the courts.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    35. Re:The problem with Antitrust by gid13 · · Score: 1

      It's more fundamental than that the open source developers haven't found revenue. It's a disagreement about what the very rules of the game are.

      I am not proposing that OSS developers get special treatment, I am proposing that nobody has to pay for such tech. Make the standards open, and everyone can code their own interface. If CSS can do it better, let them do so at that point, which will not inconvenience the consumer who wants free software and interoperability.

      The real reason that companies fight to keep control of this tech is because they want revenue from it, they want a monopoly on it. My suggestion removes their capacity to have a monopoly based on widespread distribution of their OS. Yours doesn't.

      Further, I'm not suggesting requiring CSS developers to maintain documentation. I'm suggesting requiring them to open the code that relates to interoperability. And I'm not asking the court to do things for the benefit of OSS coders (not directly, anyway), I'm asking the court to do things for the benefit of the consumer - me.

    36. Re:The problem with Antitrust by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      But what you're ignoring is that the CSS providers spent money to create those proprietary standards. If the OSS community wants access to them, then somebody is going to have convince the CSS vendors to yield them up.

      Want full access to the Windows source for all people? Microsoft is a business, and, for a suitable sum of money, could be convinced to part with it. (Under US law, the power of eminent domain would certainly suffice to require that.) Go to your friendly local government and convince them to buy the Windows source from Microsoft. At nominal rates of return on investment, I figure that it will only cost on the order of US$250,000,000,000. Maybe a little more...say a round trillion dollars US.

      Then again, maybe that isn't feasible. But that's what asking for a "fair shake" would require. If it isn't going to happen, that is not the fault of the court. It's the fault of the polity that it doesn't want to spend that kind of money.

    37. Re:The problem with Antitrust by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I've got to take exception with your classifying quicktime under 'horrible stuff'.

      * It's proprietary. Apple has made up the biggest collection of bullshit to avoid releasing specs on the format to allow mplayer to implement a decoder (Apple: "We can't do that -- only Sorenson can" and Sorenson: "We can't do that -- only Apple can").

      * The player sucks. There has been enough analysis of the problems with the player interface (especially on Windows) that I don't think I need to analyze it any more.

      * It's closed-source, and hence a pain in the ass for Linux users.

      * It doesn't support Linux.

      * It is nagware. Even the awful, awful RealPlayer, with all the corporate links and the calling back home, doesn't keep popping up ads for the software, and they're the next-most-annoying player.

    38. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers in the EU are first of all protected by consumer laws and regulations.

      Fair trade and competition related laws serve the interest of competition directly and the consumer only indirectly in cases like this. That doesn't mean consumers can't bring a case, but that will usually happen within the countries that make up the EU.

    39. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, if it's purpose is to protect consumers, the fine will be even bigger, as we have been forced to waste our money on Microsoft products, even when we didn't want to buy them, and force to use Microsoft products when we didn't want to.

    40. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "nice cross-platform media framework"? Even Apple themselves needed to include part of a Mac-emulator in their windows version, and I never heard any developer say positive things about the quicktime format. Just ask the mplayer developers.

    41. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's proprietary. Apple has made up the biggest collection of bullshit to avoid releasing specs on the format to allow mplayer to implement a decoder (Apple: "We can't do that -- only Sorenson can" and Sorenson: "We can't do that -- only Apple can").

      QT is a completely open format, documented, implementable, you name it. You are referring to the Sorenson codec that is popular for use in movie trailers etc. That isn't the only codec that is used with QuickTime files. Sorenson are the ones who developed the codec, they are the ones that licensed it to Apple, they are the ones you should be asking for documentation. Apple have already given you everything about QuickTime.

    42. Re:The problem with Antitrust by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "So let me follow this: "Apple's Quicktime pop-ups are good, and Microsoft is bad for not making IE block other companies' pop-ups." I think that is your argument."

      Not at all. I don't like pop-ups one bit regardless of who the vendor is. However, to complain about one single application like that when you are operating on a platform whose dominant browser creates a massive pop up problem is similar to the cliche involving gnats and camels and the art of swallowing each. I mean, which was the worst type of pop-up, QuickTime or Windows Messenger?

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    43. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Hitmouse · · Score: 1

      Messenger pop-ups can be turned off with a click of a checkbox. QuickTime popups require that you pay to upgrade first. I still don't buy an argument that "the browser creates a massive pop up problem". An element of responsibility lies with the page creators. I'm sure if IE had a built-in pop-up blocker long-ago, then it would have been decried for blocking free speech or an essential feature allowed in other browsers.

    44. Re:The problem with Antitrust by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      No excally I used to work for the pioneers in de video on internet world and encoded a lot of tv-shows and live-concerts, whow can you know what whould have been the quality of these players when there was a real open markt /api's ?????????

  21. with that kind of capital by SoupGuru · · Score: 1, Funny

    the EU will get to the moon and Mars before us.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:with that kind of capital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Crashing a lander doesn't count!

  22. Change by acherrington · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would even US$750 Million be enough to get them to change their ways? Would they change if they took a dent in their corporate image? That being said, how much money would it get them to take to change their practices or how many dents? They seem to have alot of both already.

    --


    Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
    1. Re:Change by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Well if they don't, there will be another fine, then another, etc. until they either change or the 'cost of doing business' gets too high and they pull out completely. My hunch is they'll change.

    2. Re:Change by Oh-es-eX · · Score: 0

      Good point there dude, I was just thinking the same. Monopoly practices seem to pay of in the end if the fine does not dent the company. I have the feeling Gates and Ballmer don't miss a sleep over this one.

  23. yay? by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

    hope that's the right reaction to this story

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  24. steps to profit... by techmuse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Step 1) Eliminate Competition
    Step 2) Profit! ($40 Billion in cash)
    Step 3) Get fined $0.5 Billion for being naughty
    Step 4) More profit!

    Value of fine benefits of bad behavior. Bad behavior continues...

    1. Re:steps to profit... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      This fine is not an one-time offer...

      Step 1) Eliminate Competition
      Step 2) Profit! ($40 Billion in cash)
      Step 3) while(naughty) { Get fined $0.5 Billion for being naughty }
      Step 4) File for bankruptcy
      Step 5) ???
      Step 6) PROFIT!

  25. M$ will pay nothing to EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    M$ will appeal and in the end nothing will happen, just as with the similar case in USA.

  26. EUR 500M by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's like $5T!

    (Yes, the joke seems to have shifted from CAN$ vs . US$ to US$ vs. EUR these days)

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:EUR 500M by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      yes - and the US dollar is worth so much today - about $1.83 to the pond (sterling, a real currency).

      Just keep on sleeping while your currency goes to shit, following your economy and the IQ of your leaders.

      I'll keep my pounds, thankyou very much.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    2. Re:EUR 500M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about $1.83 to the pond (sterling, a real currency).

      No ... you must be kidding me. Pond is not a real currency, right?

    3. Re:EUR 500M by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Real currency? Oh, thank you! I hadn't realized I'd been spending fake money all this time. You think the government would do something about this wouldn't you?

      Fucktard.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    4. Re:EUR 500M by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      Looks like BigBadBri hit a raw nerve with you there Atzanteol. A single euro is worth more than a single dollar now too. I assume you'll be hurling epithets at me in no time now.

      Of course, these are ridiculous measurements for a currency. It doesn't matter if I'm paid in euros, US dollars, sterling or Turkish lire for that matter. What matters is the stability of the currency and my purchasing power.

    5. Re:EUR 500M by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Yes he hit a nerve. I'm sick of morons insulting the US for no good reason.

      I'm aware that the US Dollar is less valued against the pound. But it's been that way for some time. It's just that recently the Dollar has been dropping in value against other currencies. Many economists aren't worried about it, as they claim it's a 'normal' side-effect of coming out of a repression. As is debt by the way*

      But if I have to listen to one more moron calling me a USian, and refering to the 'King' of America, I'm gonna hurt somebody.

      Funny thing is, that Americans are much more sympathetic than Europeans. I never heard jokes about Canadian money being 'fake' simply because it was worth 'less' than the US dollar.


      * The US government spends more money helping the economy back on it's feet. Short-term debt isn't necessarilly a bad thing. One theory at least. I'm sure you can find people who disagree.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:EUR 500M by Fancia · · Score: 1

      I never heard jokes about Canadian money being 'fake' simply because it was worth 'less' than the US dollar. Probably because you're not Canadian. I used to get those all the time, back when our dollar was weaker versus the American dollar.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    7. Re:EUR 500M by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      Funny thing is, that Americans are much more sympathetic than Europeans. I never heard jokes about Canadian money being 'fake' simply because it was worth 'less' than the US dollar
      I have. Endless jokes about European national currencies, and now the euro, looking like "monopoly" money, about the Canadian dollar... where have you been? This is par for the course. Don't take it so seriously. Console yourself with the fact that you are probably much, much better off than those doing the insulting! As for the "King" of America, that's a whole different ballot box of stolen votes (dives for cover). I do agree with you on the idiotic "USian" phrase. I find it absolutely ridiculous and tend to dismiss out of hand anything else posted by anyone using this phrase.
    8. Re:EUR 500M by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Well, usually that's the 'look' of the currency (US currency is rather bland compared to other nations currency). Not necessarilly the value of the currencey. Though the Yen and Lira have taken a bit of a beating in most nations for being so devalued...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  27. Sigh.... by tempest303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When are governments going to get a clue? Screw fines - almost no amount of money you can take from them will really have an effect on their behavior or the market. What the EU ought to do is to tell MS that if they want to do future business in Europe, they need to make the Office file formats an EMCA standard, and that any patents they have on the formats must be licenesed royalty-free. That would create real change and competition in the market - let them compete on implementation, as it ought to be!

    1. Re:Sigh.... by tsmithnj · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Where are *you* from? You advocate a government (or governments) dictating to a publicly held company how they should write their software? Should MS goosestep as well?

    2. Re:Sigh.... by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You advocate a government (or governments) dictating to a publicly held company how they should write their software?

      Well, actually governments are already dictating to motor companies how they should design and manufacture their cars (by enforcing safety and emission standards). In a similar manner they also dictate to electronic companies how they should design and manufacture their appliances (once again, by enforcing standards), and the list of the things they are dictating to construction companies is endless. So... what is so strange, actually, in government-enforced standards in computing? I think it is inevitable, sooner or later. The old joke "what if Microsoft build cars" has a grain of truth in it. Unlike cars, there are no mandatory crash tests for software. And it shows.

    3. Re:Sigh.... by Ugmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nowhere does the grandparent post say that a government should tell MS how to write there software.

      Granparent post says the file formats should be released as an ECMA standard so people who have 10 years worth of documents in a proprietary MS standard format can switch to a competitor with out worrying about losing their documents.

      Open Standards == competition. Closed Standards == exploitation of monopoly.

      If two products can read and write the same file interchangebly then the two products can compete. If not they can't. Plain and simple. MS is all about making proprietary de-facto standards and using them to eliminate the competition.

      A Free Market based on Competition does not exist at present. Having MS release their file formats (and Client-Server communication protocols) as an open standard would restore the Free Market. Releasing the format does not, in any way, tell them how to design or implement their software.

      What is MS afraid of? Competition?

    4. Re:Sigh.... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but let's not forget that all corporations exist at the pleasure of the government to begin with - a corporation is nothing more than a government-created entity that exists largely to allow its owners to avoid personal responsibility in the event of legal action. If the government can issue a charter for a corporation to exist, then it certainly should be able to revoke that charter or otherwise impose sanctions when the corporation behaves in a manner inconsistent with the general welfare of the citizenry.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:Sigh.... by pavon · · Score: 1

      Actually you can take that one more step, and do away with regulation altogether. People forget that the government's power as a consumer is often just a big as it's power as a regulator. Imagine what would happen if the DoD created (or picked an existing) open file format for word processors and mandated that in 5 years all word processing documents created by the DoD or contractors must be in this open format.

      And the clintcher is that they have a legitimate reason to do so. If you have ever worked for the government you know that record retention of up to 50 years is not an uncommon requirement. With proprietary formats the only option is to print everything out and store it as hard copies (which is not a bad idea anyway for extremely long retention requirements, but a pain for medium term). Not to mention the fact that the could would likely get a better product if the feild was open to competition.

      Anti-trust offenses always hurt the customer in the long run. That is why we have laws against them. So why doesn't the biggest customer in the world - the US government - leverage it's position and demand a better product?

    6. Re:Sigh.... by rewt66 · · Score: 1
      What is MS afraid of? Competition?


      Yes. That is exactly what they are afraid of.

    7. Re:Sigh.... by tempest303 · · Score: 1

      Well, personally, I'd advocate both positions, though simply getting the gov't to require these standards might even be enough.... but fat chance of that happening. :-P

    8. Re:Sigh.... by Hitmouse · · Score: 1

      Corel, LOtus/IBM and OpenOffice's products have been opening Microsoft Office file formats for years. What's the issue? OpenOffice even claims to open many MS documents better than Office does. Maybe someone should also force all those nasty companies that own more widely used image formats like GIF, TIFF etc to release their work to public domain?

    9. Re:Sigh.... by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      True, but isn't the reason why car companies are regulated has mainly to due with safetey issues? Thankfully, to my knowledge, NT is not currently responsible for flying airplane/keeping a heart beating.

      --
      Sig it.
    10. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike cars, there are no mandatory crash tests for software.

      What do you mean? I crash test windows everyday :p

    11. Re:Sigh.... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Publicly held companies get benefits from the Government in the form of Corporate charters, special limited liability for bankruptcy, agressive IP protection, public resources (natural and otherwise), tax breaks, the foreign-policy club, etc.

      I think that the government certainly has a right to dictate back to corporations - and I think that corporations have a right to refuse to comply, at which point, they also forfeit all those nice handouts they formerly enjoyed. Including access to domestic markets.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually governments are already dictating to motor companies how they should design and manufacture their cars (by enforcing safety and emission standards).

      That's because we all have to share the same atmosphere, whether we like it or not. You can't opt out of using air.

      In a similar manner they also dictate to electronic companies how they should design and manufacture their appliances (once again, by enforcing standards)

      Again, the EM spectrum is limited and we need to figure out how to share it peacefully because fighting over it would make it useless.

      and the list of the things they are dictating to construction companies is endless.

      What are you going to do, only walk around where there are no buildings, just in case some of them are crappily made and might fall on you?

      You can opt out of using Microsoft software. I don't think your argument supports things like Media Player, but I do think it supports forcing Microsoft to secure their software properly. You still have to pay your bandwidth bill when your web server is under constant barrage from Code Red et al, even if you don't use Microsoft software.

    13. Re:Sigh.... by Hobobo · · Score: 1

      "almost no amount of money you can take from them will really have an effect on their behavior or the market."

      Yes there is. Assume they make X dollars from their illegal activities and F is the cost of the fine plus (although it's probably negligible) bad publicity. If F > X then a company will follow the law. Pretty simple.

    14. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and if M$ were a car manufacturer they'd have been out of business circa circa 2003.

    15. Re:Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree

    16. Re:Sigh.... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      I'd say that from a profit point of view an illegal activity would be profitable if F*p X (where p is the chance of being caught, F the fine and X the profit). Of course, this only holds true if there are no repercussions apart from the fine when caught.

    17. Re:Sigh.... by k_head · · Score: 1

      Sez who. It's responsible for battle ships, ATM machines, banking systems and tens of thousands of other uses. NT can kill more people then GM ever could.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    18. Re:Sigh.... by spruce · · Score: 1

      Just remember, your gubament can't regulate just MS if this is the case. All companies, Linux distros, Macs, etc. would have to be held to the same standard. Sounds great, eh?

    19. Re:Sigh.... by spruce · · Score: 1

      Not just MS. Macs, IBM, etc. have to release their file formats if that's the case.

    20. Re:Sigh.... by BostonPilot · · Score: 1
      Can I really opt out of Microsoft if my employer uses it, my clients use it, and Microsoft makes their interfaces proprietary and/or patent encumbered in order to defeat open source alternatives?

      At my last job, it was dictated that everybody use Microsoft. At my current job they simply make it difficult to not use Microsoft.

      At some point, it becomes in theory possible to opt out, but in practice impossible.

  28. What about the problem !!! by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I did not see a mention of the removal of media player. Is a fine the only recourse the EU has? Can they not see that cash is not something that will hurt MS but stripping windows down is? *sigh* Another slap on the wrist for a company that buys their way out of any legal troubles yet never addresses the real problems.

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
    1. Re:What about the problem !!! by dotslasher_sri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, they did order to remove the WMP

      As well as the fine, Microsoft is to be ordered to offer a version of its Windows operating system without Windows Media Player and to encourage computer makers to provide other audiovisual software

    2. Re:What about the problem !!! by maunleon · · Score: 1

      I don't think stripping down windows will hurt Microsoft. They will still probably include Media Player and other such things as an option on the CD or on windows update. Or bundled with other programs (e.g. Office, etc) And people will still get it.. All they probably managed to do is give people another pain in the ass. Thank you, big government.

      Oh.. there is one bright side. Real Audio. And yes, I'm being facetious.

      And people will still not be any wiser on how to get good, free players without spyware.

      I hate realplayer probably more than anything else out there except one thing: Sony's OpenMG. And strangely enough, those are the only two apps I can use to send tracks to my MD Player. If MS's mplayer or Winamp had MD support, I'd be a happy camper.

    3. Re:What about the problem !!! by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 1

      My point was that it was not a definite "do it now!". This has to go throught the appeals with the fine and after ? years they may be ordered to deliver a new version without media player. By the time this is settled in the courts, the problem will have become moot as they will then have "Happy Deluxe media player" installed.

      --
      Stay tuned for new sig...
    4. Re:What about the problem !!! by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      My point was that it was not a definite "do it now!".

      That'd be because the EU cannot claim that doing so would be good for consumers with a straight face, given that the competition is malware/spyware like RealPlayer.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
  29. Woo Hoo!!! by Hassman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Woo Hoo!! This will teach evil monopolies like MS or DeBeers not to mess with us consumers...

    Pfft, yea right. Like the corperations would ever let that happen.

    Check out this Reuters Article. I'm sure you can find it online, it was sent to me via 'business watch'...

    If you don't want to read it, here it is in a nutshell: There are seveal processes that exist that will keep the verdict in the court system for up to 7 years before any payout has to occur. By then? Who knows...


    March 22, 2004 13:26:00 (ET)
    By David Lawsky

    BRUSSELS, March 22 (Reuters) -- Microsoft (MSFT,Trade) will win one thing after it loses a landmark EU antitrust case this week -- months and possibly years before it must do what the European Union executive orders, experts said on Monday.

    The European Commission is scheduled to rule on Wednesday that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist which used the power of its dominant Windows operating system to damage competitors.

    As soon as the ruling is issued, the U.S. software giant will go to court and be assured of months of delay.

    Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine of hundreds of millions of euros, the topic of an advisory committee of EU member states on Monday.

    The Commission will order the company to sell a version of its operating system without Windows Media Player and to encourage computers makers to provide other audiovisual software.

    And it must license information at a reasonable rate to make the low-level servers of rivals, used for printing and file services, more compatible with Windows desktop machines.

    But as Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said last week soon after settlement negotiations ended in failure: "Today is just another step in what could be a long process."

    Microsoft has always made maximum use of courts to assert its rights and this will be no exception, experts say.

    "There are enormous possibilities open to Microsoft to buy time," said David Wood, an antitrust lawyer for Howrey Simon.

    The company will appeal the Commission ruling and ask the Court of First Instance to suspend remedies until the underlying case is decided. Until the court decides that first question the remedies are suspended.

    BACK BURNER

    "If they lose the application to suspend they can appeal that to the European Court of Justice. During that period -- the better part of a year -- it is likely the substantive case will be put on the back burner," Wood said.

    The court case itself could take two or three years and an appeal will take an equal amount of time.

    The Commission is expected to argue such a long delay will make its remedies irrelevant, because the market will have moved on and it will be too late to stop damage to other companies and to consumers.

    Microsoft is expected to argue that if it is forced to carry out the remedies ordered by the Commission it cannot undo them and will suffer irreparable harm.

    Some cases move on fast track, if one party agrees to narrow the issues and the Commission agrees to suspend the remedies. But that would pose no advantage for Microsoft.

    "Microsoft clearly wants to have the issues examined as fully as possible. This seems to make it unlikely that they would wish to use the fast-track procedure," Wood said.

    The worst case for Microsoft is that the remedies would begin to bite once an appeals court ruled they may not be suspended, which could take seven months or more.

    The best case is that the remedies would be suspended until the case is finished, which could be seven years or more.

    Even if the issues are suspended, the Commission is expected to move full steam ahead on two other investigations of Microsoft for business practices similar to those that got it in trouble this time.

    And although the remedies may be suspended, the precedent set by the Commission in labelling Microsoft for its abuse of dominance will not disappear.

    "You can expect the Commission to apply the precedent they have in their own decision in comparable cases regardless of whether the court delays the entry into force of their remedies," said Sven Voelcker, an antitrust lawyer with Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in Brussels.


    --
    -Mark
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    1. Re:Woo Hoo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are seveal processes that exist that will keep the verdict in the court system for up to 7 years before any payout has to occur. By then? Who knows...

      Keep in mind, however, that companies generally DO WANT TO SETTLE. Especially when dealing with governments. Why? Big corporations FEAR and HATE uncertainty (except when slinging FUD at competition), and nothing spells uncertainty like on-going court case with someone who actually has power and can get favourable outcome in courts. Continuing dispute would be bad for Microsoft through its investors getting more suspicious, and potential (esp. european) customers also being more cautious. Obviously this wouldn't be as bad for MS as for smaller companies, but it's hardly beneficial for them either.

      Thus, no doubt Microsoft will appeal, but at the same time, they will continue talks to make the deal, to make this "unpleasant incident" be forgotten.

  30. They could do as you suggest by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    But that means they couldn't sell their product AT ALL in Europe. They'll do this, but only assuming the amount they get fined exceeds the amount they are likely to make. So let's say Eurpoe fined them $100 Billion. They'd say "see ya" and pull out European operations. However, as is, I imaging they pay it and go on their way.

    1. Re:They could do as you suggest by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Means nothing of the sort, MS can still sell in selected countries as this is the _EU_ that is imposing the fine. Contrary to popular belief, the EU isnt all of europe, and indeed some member states get along fine doing their own thing outside of the EU while benefiting from membership.

  31. Where does this money go? by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unforunately, like all big businesses, any government fines or restrictions will inevitably be passed on down to their consumers. But I have a feeling none of this 500 million slap-on-the-wrist will go anywhere near Microsoft consumers. Expect to see price hikes in the future.

    --

    Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    1. Re:Where does this money go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect to see price hikes in the future.

      Hmmm I don't think you have to look to the future, we already have that situation now.

  32. And he'd be right about WMD by msgmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AFAIK both the UK and France have nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:And he'd be right about WMD by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. I beleive that would be a first for this administration- correctly guessing who has them.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:And he'd be right about WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If empty shells in Iraq qualify, they probably should invade Belgium right now. They still have tons of mustard gas shells lying around from the first world war. (neatly stacked up under corrugated iron roofs, waiting for destruction. they are rusting a bit, so let's hope they will be cleared up before they start to leak.)

    3. Re:And he'd be right about WMD by phutureboy · · Score: 1
    4. Re:And he'd be right about WMD by LittleBigLui · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, but judging by the geographic skills that USians (stereo)typically exhibit, they'll probably bomb austria or romania instead.

      (Yes, I know that the latter isn't even an EU member (yet)).

      --
      Free as in mason.
    5. Re:And he'd be right about WMD by mu-sly · · Score: 2, Funny

      AFAIK both the UK and France have nuclear weapons.

      Surely you mean nucular weapons?

  33. This money ain't gettin' paid. by mystery_bowler · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Oh yeah, Microsoft will pay some money. And they'll keep fighting in the courts.

    Along the way they'll pay off European business leaders and politicians to continually pressure the courts and the judges.

    And, of course, Microsoft could be banking on something that seems to be ever-so-close to happening: the complete dissolution of the EU. Then there will be no one to pay.

    --

    My sigs always suck.
    1. Re:This money ain't gettin' paid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      something that seems to be ever-so-close to happening: the complete dissolution of the EU.

      As much as I dislike french-originated arrogant bureaucratic pseudo-intellectual crap Brussels is spewing (not to mention power grabbing those useless commission bozos focus on), dissolution is about as likely as UN taking over as the World Government. Ain't gonna happen any time soon, for better or worse.

    2. Re:This money ain't gettin' paid. by bob_dinosaur · · Score: 1
      Microsoft could be banking on something that seems to be ever-so-close to happening: the complete dissolution of the EU.
      Where do you get this? The EU is probably less likely to dissolve now than it has been at any other period in its history.

      The recent disagreements over Iraq are in a policy area traditionally not covered by the EU, and given the amount of history between France, Germany, England, and Spain, it's not surprising that there are issues. After all, in various guises these countries have been at war with each other for much of the last thousand years. However, they're not stupid enough to break up the EU over a foreign policy squabble. The benefits are just too great.

      The EU was originally the EEC (the European Economic Community) and that's where it's strongest at building consensus. That's not to say that the sailing is always smooth (see the discussions over CAP reform, or fishing rights). A common market with common standards make goods cheaper and raises standards, and governments recognise this.

    3. Re:This money ain't gettin' paid. by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      the complete dissolution of the EU.
      I see -- you are an imbecile. Carry on.
  34. It's not about putting them out of business. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is about smacking them in the head to get their attention.

    If Microsoft doesn't change its practices, we can see more fines such as this. Eventually, Microsoft will change.

    1. Re:It's not about putting them out of business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > It is about smacking them in the head to get their attention.

      And the point of this thread is that to Microsoft, a mere $500M would not be a smack in the head - more like a gentle tap on the arm. Nothing to get alarmed about, nothing to take seriously.

    2. Re:It's not about putting them out of business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OK, but do we really want to give politicians, that most organized cadre of criminals, the idea that they can raise funds by fining companines?
      If I remember my history class correctly, that was fairly common practice back in Rome, to fund the government by liquidating rich people...

    3. Re:It's not about putting them out of business. by thogard · · Score: 1

      $3 billion in fines could be extracted just from the profit they made in the last few years in the EU without much of an effect. It took the stock market about 4 hours to figure out this isn't a fine but a license fee to keep doing what they have been doing.

      The only way to stop this nonsense is to break up MSFT into compaines that have to compete with each other but no one has the guts to do that. If Rockefeller was alive to see this he would have been wondering why he couldn't get away with the same thing.

    4. Re:It's not about putting them out of business. by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, but do we really want to give politicians, that most organized cadre of criminals, the idea that they can raise funds by fining companines?

      You can't put a company in jail, so how else do you make it behave except to take the one thing (money) that matters to the company? Microsoft has been publicly wrist-slapped in the past with no apparent result. I still prefer the rule of our elected officials to the rule of our unelected corporate overlords.

    5. Re:It's not about putting them out of business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they will just make there is now more competition to tarnish their image.

  35. Its only fitting.... by MeBadMagic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's only fitting that the ringleader of a virus cartel (the majority of viruses out there either specifically target M$, or require M$ software) get fined more than a vitamin cartel! Go EU!

    --
    A friend will come and bail you out of jail, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "damn that was fun!"
  36. Backtracking by illuminata · · Score: 0

    Well, I keep hearing talks about Microsoft being a monopoly and needing to be punished. But, what I want to know is what are they actually being punished for.

    Bonus points go to who can tell me if that's good or bad.

    --


    Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    1. Re:Backtracking by k98sven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I keep hearing talks about Microsoft being a monopoly and needing to be punished. But, what I want to know is what are they actually being punished for.

      For being a monopoly. Or rather, using their monopoly position to leverage themselves against competitors.

      Spending millions of dollars to develop IE which was then distributed free with Windows pushed Netscape out of the browser business fast.

      Now they're trying to do the same with AIM, Real, iTunes, well, you name it!

      Doing that kind of stuff is not legal in the USA, nor is it legal in any western country. And for good reason: Monopoly practices are bad for everybody except the monopolist.
      It's damaging to the economy. It's damaging for consumers.

      Or to put it another way: Capitalism is it's own worst enemy.
      (and that was pretty much agreed upon until certain politicans realized that big businesses had bigger pockets for campaign spending)

    2. Re:Backtracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. being sucessful is fine, it's when you use that sucess to prevent others from being sucessful that you run into problems.

      I'm not going to speak for your pov because you haven't made it clear but if sucess meant that you could prevent others from becoming sucessful the mafia would still be in business.

    3. Re:Backtracking by raidient · · Score: 1

      They did not spend millions of dollars to develop IE. They rebadged Mosaic. IIRC they also double-crossed the creators of Mosaic by promising them a royalty for every copy of IE that they SOLD!

      --
      My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
    4. Re:Backtracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually netscape forced itself out of the browser market by being buggy shit. once ie 4 came out and pissed all over netscape, people switched. its only the security problems of IE that makes most windows users switch to moz

    5. Re:Backtracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For being a monopoly......

      For creating 3rd rate, no, 5th rate shite they palm off as software.

      For overcharging for said shite.

      For stealing blantanly others work (1 case in point of many)Znet Burst
      Burst faq

      For duping the general public into thinking THEY are the benchmark.

      For actively assisting SCO in their quest against OSS.

      For doing untold harm to the software industry in general.

    6. Re:Backtracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anybody ever paid for netscape? You could download it for free. No nagging screen. No registration. The way I see it, this thing was as free as Internet Explorer. Nobody could have competed with them without a free browser.

    7. Re:Backtracking by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is its own worst enemy.

      The specific problem here are scale effects. Most products share an economic property, twice the marketshare will bring in more than twice the profits, since your fixed costs are spread wider across the quantity sold. As a result, there is a natural tendency for businesses to merge. It is profitable. Government's job is to ensure that the market remains a free market. This means they must constantly shoot down the top dog. It's brutal to the investors of the monopolist, but necessary for keeping the economy rolling.

      Ofcourse, this blends with politics, and the bigger a company is, the more political power it has, which is why microsoft hasn't been taken down yet by the US justice department.

  37. Microsoft and Government Corruption blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, I know it was just a dumb bit to get a laugh, but try to keep this in mind, you anti-MS trolls, that Microsoft was doing poorly in the antitrust cases because they don't play the influence game with contributions to politicrits.

    Sure, after Shrub took office, they let MS off the hook, but that was because the Republicans are evil pro-corporate goons, and apparently did this for Microsoft as a freebie.

  38. more antitrust lawsuits agains Microsoft? by mah! · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to La Repubblica online (try the fish if necessary), Sun, Nokia, Yahoo and Oracle are asking the EU Antitrust to intervene about Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Messanger and Windows Movie Maker 2 as well.

    The current ruling could set a useful precedent... with someone finally having the guts to intervene against illegal abuse of monopolies, Microsoft may finally have to pay for the damage it has done to the software industry and users

    1. Re:more antitrust lawsuits agains Microsoft? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "According to La Repubblica online (try the fish if necessary), Sun, Nokia, Yahoo and Oracle are asking the EU Antitrust to intervene about Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Messanger and Windows Movie Maker 2 as well."

      Windows Movie Maker2? Who is filing a complaint based upon that? Pinnacle? Adobe? Roxio?

      You probably should also add SuSE (Novell, cough cough) to the list. Considering how successful SuSE was in getting the SCO monkey off their back in German, I'm sure SuSE will lobby the EC to investigate this whole "litigation financing" racket Redmond cooked up... and that will be the Mt. Pinatubo of feces slapping the fan blades to bust their chops over with.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  39. Re:Yay! Tax rebates! by legoburner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yay about 1 euro each :)

    I would prefer that we spend it on Space exploration, or even better, fund Open Source development to the tune of 500M euros... that would give some nice returns for the planet.

    To be fair though, it should probably be spent on the 10 ex-soviet (and other) countries that are joining the EU in May... perhaps a moving in present (50Million euros investment in the infrastructure of each country would go a long way since their average income is relatively low).

  40. The gateway vitamins by modder · · Score: 2, Funny

    "EU investigators found the price fixing started in the vitamin A and E market in the 1990s,"
    Oh those crazy 90s.... They always said vitamin A was the gateway vitamin, but we never ever listen to the signs.

  41. Thank goodness by andih8u · · Score: 1

    Now Real's crapware and proprietary codec can get back some market share...that'll make the world a better place. "Millions of Euoropeans rejoice at finally being able to watch excellent .rm's again." Oh wait, they were never prohibited from it in the first place. The whole media player thing is pretty stupid; nothing about Windows prevented people from being able to download alternatives. Seems more like a way for some governments to pick up some free cash.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:Thank goodness by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      joe bloggs will just use what is there, they will only get other players when content they want is released in it. and also a lot wont know how to install it. Its all barriers to competition

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  42. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Funny
    Before you bomb us Europeans, can we please have back:

    - All your BMW and Mercedes cars

    - The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)

    - All your nuclear weapons and X-Ray machines (since radioactivity was discovered by the French Marie Curie in the 19th century)

    - The ideas that the Wright Brothers stole from Leonardo Da Vinci (Italian)

    By return of post, we will send back:

    - Macdonalds

    - All our Hoover vacuum cleaners (since we now have the much superior British Dyson vacuum cleaners)

    - "Charmed", "Smallville" & "Dawson's Creek" (however, we'd like to keep a copy of "The Simpsons" just to remember you guys by!)

    Ciao, toodle pip and au revoir.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  43. The real penalty by Don+Tworry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real penalty for Microsoft is having to extract it's media player from the OS and collaborate with other software company media companies. This will increase their support costs in the long run.

    --
    humble and proud of it.
    1. Re:The real penalty by burns210 · · Score: 1

      yes, why on EARTH would you bundle a media player into the OS such that it is impossible to remove... is it tied into the kernel?

      But it doesn't matter, removing the media player is nice, but won't fix or change anything. Removing apps that are inaapropriately bundled is a start, but it is only a bandage to fix the real problem: protocols, documentation and standards... Have MS publish and document ALL the APIs in windows. Publish in detail the workings of the Office file formats(for the current, the next version and the past couple versions AT LEAST).

      To anyone who says publishing APIs is a security risk: they are available to developers, Microsoft just doesn't tell you what they are or how to properly use them... It isn't impossible to use them, Microsoft uses them.

      THEN the EU should require that all official documents be published in a format in a free and open format... one that can be accessed(read/write) on multiple platforms and the specifications are available for a compotent programmer could work properly with those files... So 15 years from now we(they) arn't stuck with gigs of MS Office 97 .doc files that they can't read.

  44. No no, it should be... (oblig Austin powers ref) by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mario Monti: "Here's the plan. We fine Microsoft and we hold them ransom for......five hundred MILLION dollars!"

    EUC Number Two: "Uh huh hum. Well, don't you think we should maybe ask for more than five hundred million dollars? Five hundred million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. The EUC alone makes over ninety billion dollars a year."

    Mario Monti: "Really?"

    EUC Number Two: "Uh huh!"

    Mario Monti: "That's a lot. Okay then. We hold Microsoft ransom for..... five hundred BILLION dollars!!"
    *Evil Laughter*

  45. Why can't I post with named character entities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Y'know, people should normally be able to write: "&euro;" and get a real euro symbol, instead of having to using "E".

    But it doesn't seem to work on /.

    Does anyone know why all named character entities seem to get stripped out when I submit /. articles (using "HTML Formatted", of course).

    1. Re:Why can't I post with named character entities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d'uh. slashdot is written using Frontpage.

  46. Inapproriate? Hardly. by DrPepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft associate general counsel for Europe Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement the fine was unjustified. "We believe it's unprecedented and inappropriate for the Commission to impose a fine on a company's U.S. operations when those operations are already regulated by the U.S. government and the conduct at issue has been permitted by both the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts," he said.

    I'm sorry, but if you trade into the EU, then you are expected to obey the laws of that market. Doesn't matter where the head office is. I'd have thought that Bill would employ lawyers with a clue - at least enough of a clue not to make a stupid statement like this.

  47. 613 Million is a joke to Microsoft by Luscious868 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    613 million US dollars is nothing to Microsoft! They have billions of dollars in cash. Let's hope the final verdict consists of more than that. If the fine and removal of Windows Media Player are all that the EU is going to propose then I say why even bother. It amounts to a slap on the wrist. Not that any goverment body can really do anything to Microsoft. OSS is what will contain the beast and eventually take away it's bite.

    1. Re:613 Million is a joke to Microsoft by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Yep, the EU has seriously underestimated the fine. This isn't a small price fixing scam, this is one of the largest software companies in the world abusing its dominant position. The effects of what Microsoft do affect most people involved in IT.

    2. Re:613 Million is a joke to Microsoft by forgetmenot · · Score: 1

      At last look, they're sitting on something like 36 billion in cash reservces. That's a large amount of money - too large to fit into my brain so let's compare that to something reasonable.

      Let's say you have 36 dollars in your pocket. This fine takes away 62 cents. You still have $35.38 cents. Assuming that the money isn't just sitting in a locked safe but is invested in T-bills, bonds, stocks, etc... they'll make that back in interest/dividends whatever in the time it takes them to write the cheque to the EU.

      A cash fine means nothing to MS - Any meaningful punishment has to take the form of limitations imposed upon their business practices itself - above and beyond requiring them to merely comply with law.

  48. The other side of the story :) by kutuz_off · · Score: 1

    1) Allow a company to eliminate competition.
    2) Profit! (.5$B in cash)
    3) Look the other way for a few years.
    4) More profit!

  49. Re:Typical Europeans by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Funny

    - All your BMW and Mercedes cars

    Fine - they are unrealiable: we are keeping the Japanese cars tho.

    > The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)

    You can have the prototypes the he never managed to get working - took the Germans to do that, and the US to perfect them.

    > All your nuclear weapons and X-Ray machines (since radioactivity was discovered by the French Marie Curie in the 19th century)

    Yeah she really did a bang up job with that, eh?

    > The ideas that the Wright Brothers stole from Leonardo Da Vinci (Italian)

    OK here you have me - the wearable bat suits and cork screw helicopters powered by men walking around in circles are all yours.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  50. Re:Or mabye.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Uhm, there was a sourcecode release, and if i remember correctly it was more than a week ago. Windows is still usable. Whats your point again?

  51. EU citizens will pay the fine by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    The lovely thing about having a monopoly is that you can simply pass this on to the public. EU citizens should consider this a tax increase.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:EU citizens will pay the fine by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      No, they can't. Monopoly prices are unrelated to the cost of the product, particularly fixed costs (this would be included under fixed costs). Unless they are mispricing their product, then they are already charging as much as they can (to maximize profits). Charging more would reduce sales too much to compensate for the increased price (i.e. raising the price would hurt their sales so much that they would lose money).

      This is the reason why anti-trust laws exist: to keep companies from pricing their products at the demand-based monopolist levels rather than at the lower demand/supply based competitive prices. Also, it is worth noting that with competitive prices, there is more production (i.e. more of the good is made and sold).

  52. Cash Stream for EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    EU is smart to set the euro fine small, that way they can milk this cash cow for years to come.

  53. Windows source code as an asset by mdfst13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that at least one of the European Union countries is involved in Microsoft's Shared Source program. If they don't pay the fine, the European Union could seize the copyright (in lieu of payment of the fine), get a copy of the code, and sell the source code to one of their own software companies. That would presumably be worth the 500 million euros, even ignoring any other assets that may exist.

    Microsoft traditionally outsources most of their development, so there is no reason to think that the new company couldn't continue development. Possibly with the same Indian developers as are working on the Microsoft code ;)

    Maybe they will even open source it to fix the bugs :)

    1. Re:Windows source code as an asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is an internationally recognized concept of property. Do you think the US would really stand up for the EU taking property from another in such a way? Do you think the US would really stand up for taking away that much tax revenue? I think a lot of people say that there's no way the US would attack the EU. That may be true. But they could assasinate enough people in the group making these decisions until they start making US and Microsoft friendly ones.

    2. Re:Windows source code as an asset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Microsoft traditionally outsources most of their development"

      What are you talking about?! MS outsources small projects here and there, core work is always done by MS employees.

    3. Re:Windows source code as an asset by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      The Maltese government is involved in the shared source program. I don't know who is involved actually, local news about this didn't bother to say which companies etc.

      I don't think the EU can do what you say.

  54. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McEmployee:

    "You want your Nazi's with them Big Mac's???"

  55. Re:Typical Europeans by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

    - The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)

    While I agree entirely, Whittle had a jet powered aircraft flying in the mid 1930s. And Germany had operational jet fighters and bombers in service in 1943/44. Just a minor nitpick :)

  56. Who'd get the money? by weave · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Say Microsoft pays up. Where does the money go? Split between member countries? It'd be nice to see some of it invested into European high-tech firms and start ups.

    Think of it as affirmative action for European tech companies that were kept down by "the man." This could help equalize the playing field again!

    1. Re:Who'd get the money? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      we don't want software vouchers though... we want real money if anything.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Who'd get the money? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      we don't want software vouchers though... we want real money if anything

      No problem, but you'll need to give them an extra day or two to switch the plates on presses.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  57. MOD PARENT DOWN FOR CONTINING THREAD WHICH IS OVER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    (n/t)

  58. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    haha, i love it.

    Okay, in that case please give back anything that uses a transistor. Oh, and ALL autos, since they were invented by Ford (since you claim all aircraft jet engines invented by a Brit).

    Oh, and to the rest of the Americas please send back and stop using all chocolate, tomatos, potatos, corn, and tobacco. thank you very much. :-)

  59. Wrong abbreviation of currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please note, that the official abbreviation for Euro is EUR.
    Thank you.

  60. What will the EU do with 500M E$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What I am curious to know is what the EU will do with all that money. While a half billion eurodollars isn't all that much to MicroSoft, it could do wonders for the software developers of the European Union, especially if it funds local development of F/OSS media formats (i.e. the codecs, players, and authoring tools).

  61. Lucky they're smarter than I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were it me, I'd just remove support for EU languages from Windows and stop selling it in the EU. I'm up to my eyesockets with EU whining anyways. By the way, Microsoft sucks, too. Couldn't design or code their way out of a wet paper bag...

  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. "Need No DRM" (to the tune of "Yellow Submarine") by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the OS I installed,
    Lived a player,
    By Microsoft,
    And it told us what to do,
    With our music and DVDs,
    So we took it to the EC,
    And we told them what we found,
    And they gave Bill a big fine,
    And they told him to take it out,

    -Chorus-

    We don't need your stinking DRM,
    We are European,
    We are European,
    Bill can stick his codecs in the bin,
    We are European,
    We are European.

    And our friend is little Tux,
    Cos he let's us do what we please,
    Bill can go and boil his head,
    While we drink beer from Ballmer's skull

    -Chorus-

    We don't need your stinking DRM,
    We are European,
    We are European,
    Bill can stick his codecs in the bin,
    We are European,
    We are European.

    Now we live a life of ease,
    Everyone of us,
    Is European,
    We can play the tunes we like
    We can watch the films we need
    We don't pay no MS tax
    We are free from DRM

    -Chorus-

    We don't need your stinking DRM,
    We are European,
    We are European,
    Bill can stick his codecs in the bin,
    We are European,
    We are European.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  64. Re:Typical Europeans by mah! · · Score: 1
    Before you bomb us Europeans, can we please have back:

    also, Harry Potter, Ferrari&Lamborghini, the names for pizza, mozzarella, etc. (they keep the stuff they sell by those names though :-) ... what else? Uhmmm... the Linux kernel?

    By return of post, we will send back:

    Wait! You forgot to send back Eminem, Snoop Dog & co. - (I'd hold on to some jazz though)

  65. Re:SWAA by RogueProtoKol · · Score: 1

    They do if you know HTML, > = >

  66. Good Idea by TenPin22 · · Score: 1

    Every country that uses MS products should do this to MS.

    Goverment: Cough up or we'll ban your products.
    MS:Uhhhh, appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal. Damn OK.

    In the end all it does is leech money from the US economy.

  67. Re:Typical Europeans by spectecjr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before you bomb us Europeans, can we please have back:
    - All your BMW and Mercedes cars

    - The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)


    You seem to be under the misguided impression that Britain actually enjoys being part of Europe.

    Last time there was a poll on the matter (by The Sun), the majority of people in the UK wanted to be part of the US more than they wanted to be part of Europe.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  68. MS has $49 billion cash on-hand. by theghost · · Score: 1

    This fine is nothing more than a nuisance to them.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  69. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and ALL autos, since they were invented by Ford

    And once again, the ignorant american stereotype comes true.

  70. Re:Disgusting TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't anyone else even bother replying to this troll. Jeez, AC, be a little more obvious in your trolling, could you?

  71. If it does stay around for seven years by modder · · Score: 1

    They can earn their fine in interest, several times over...

  72. historically speaking by MolecularBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the things I love about being in the field of computer science is that it is still young. Years and years from now, there will be discussions in history books about Microsoft and all the good/evil things that came about from their aggressive domination of the industry. This EU judgment may even be cited... "Microsoft began to lose power in the early 21st century as it fell victim to a barrage of heavy fines for anti-competitive behavior. In 2004, the software giant faced its stiffest fine yet from the European Union at $613 million dollars. While this was a drop in the bucket to a company with $40 billion in cash reserves, it set a precedent that other countries soon followed."

    --

    Magnatune: Quality (DRM-free) MP3/FLAC/
    1. Re:historically speaking by moumine · · Score: 1

      maybe you will be proven right, but surely, the European Union is not a "country" yet

    2. Re:historically speaking by Hitmouse · · Score: 1

      OR: Years and years from now, there will be discussions in history books about US corporations and all the good/evil things that came about from their aggressive domination of global industries. This EU judgment may even be cited... "Us corporations began to lose power in the early 21st century as they fell victim to a barrage of heavy fines for trade issues...it set a precedent that other countries soon followed." When the EU starts fining other US companies as payback for perceived inequities, then a different pattern will emerge.

    3. Re:historically speaking by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      There used to be media called "Books" before the Microsoft DRM Amendment.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:historically speaking by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >European Union is not a "country" yet

      It passes the "walks like a duck" test.
      I have no problem regarding the EU as a governing federation of European states. Give the EU a standing army and I'll regard it as a fact.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  73. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your nuclear weapons and X-Ray machines (since radioactivity was discovered by the French Marie Curie in the 19th century)

    Certainly. You don't mind if we arm the nuclear weapons first, do you? Oh, and we'll ship them ballistically - they'll get there faster.

  74. Re:Typical Europeans by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shut up. They'll take back the porn!

  75. Re:E500M? We got that covered. by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's almost too good... pad it up with a few hundred words, do something fancy to it in word, and sell it to M$ as a "business case"... Welcome to the world of "consulting"...

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  76. Thank heavens you let us know that it was done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it weren't for wise and helpful posts like yours, we would never know what to do with ourselves!

  77. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your nuclear weapons

    please provide your GPS coordinates and we'll be happy to comply with your request - maybe we can blow you all the way back to when you eurotrash actually mattered.

  78. You're missing the point by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not chump change. It's a small but significant dent, which they've unceremoniously been given in spite of Ballmer's best efforts to talk the authorities down last week.

    It's also widely rumoured to be accompanied by (a) a compulsion to ship a version of Windows with Media Player completely stripped out, in order to remove the artificial dominance Microsoft has secured over the multimedia world, and (b) heavy penalty conditions if Microsoft gets up to this stuff again, so lengthy court action can be replaced by abruptly hitting them when they're down. These are, for now, only rumours, since the ruling won't be made public until later this week. However, no-one's jumping up and down denying them, and it's well known that all the European parties and Microsoft have seen that ruling. Draw any conclusions from that you like, or wait to see for sure mid-week.

    At any rate, this isn't meant to kill Microsoft. It's meant to make them behave, and to reopen competition in the marketplace for the benefit of the public. In that respect, it seems fairly well judged, assuming the above rumours are reasonably accurate.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:You're missing the point by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      If what you say is true (which will hopefully be confirmed in due course) then it is better than I at first thought. There needs to be a way of rapidly hitting them every time they step out of line.

      It looks as if they are incapable of accepting any ruling of any court anywhere, so hopefully if that continues, they will eventually be destroyed completely, much to the benefit of the software industry, and the world as a whole. But maybe not, maybe they will just get rid of their chief scumbag, insatiably greedy incompetent, and software architect, and his bully-boy chief executive (or whatever his title is these days) who is known for brandishing baseball bats in meetings. The shareholders ought to be demanding that they go.

    2. Re:You're missing the point by abradsn · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the benefit in the demise of any large innovative software company. Remember that without Windows, Linux would not have any competition either, and that would have a negative impact too.

  79. the little differences by name773 · · Score: 0

    the article headline says $500 million and the article text says $497 million.
    i say they fine m$ the 497 million and i keep the 3 million dollar mistake.

  80. cash money by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    So... when MS pays the 0.5Gigaeuro fine, who gets the money?


    -Colin

  81. In other news.... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft will no longer provide free snacks and soft drinks for its programmers.

    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, he's Bill Gates, not George Steinbrenner....

  82. other options by sir_cello · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Fines are a weak response, as it has been stated over again, this is piss in a pond to the likes of Microsoft.

    On the other hand, the European Commission has the power under Article 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (which where anti-competitive behaviour is prohibited) to impose structural remedies: to insist upon corporate re-organisation or say an order to disclose information or to unbundle software. This would be a far more appropriate remedy that would actually be economically useful rather than a bit more cash in the bank for EU.

    If the commission really has spine, it will seek this type of remedy rather than the easy way out. It may in fact seek a combination of fines and structural remedy, so we'll just have to wait and see.

    1. Re:other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure the US would allow the EU to supervise the breakup/restructuring of one of its largest corporations.

    2. Re:other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Fines are a weak response, as it has been stated
      >over again, this is piss in a pond to the likes
      >of Microsoft.

      Yes, but, now that it's been established that there was wrongdoing punishable by fines, the idea is that *continued* infractions would be met with increasingly harsher punishments.

    3. Re:other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another sad chapter in European tyranny dating back to the middle ages. Europe has never been free, except for a brief time when French enlightenment philsophers had a clue. They've gone straight from feudalism to socialism

    4. Re:other options by sir_cello · · Score: 1


      You don't understand the "doctrine of effects": quite certainly the EU can impose a structural remedy upon Microsoft even though it is a foreign based organisation. The remedy may only _apply_ to Microsoft's operations in the EU, but to be honest that's all the EU cares about.

      It could require that Microsoft products put onto the market by Microsoft in the EU meet specific unbundling requirements. In this case you could grey import the more restrictive version of Windows if you wanted to :-).

      In point of note: this is exactly what happened with GE and Honeywell. The US FTC allowed the merger to go ahead, but the EC DGCOMP blocked it unless certain conditions were met. This caused an absolute political uproar in the US, yet it's entirely justified. If the companies in question don't like the deal, then they can get out of the EU. If the EU acts too restrictively and drives away to many organisations, well that's to its own loss. There's got to be a meeting in the middle (and hopefully it's not the Azores).

    5. Re:other options by sir_cello · · Score: 1


      Where do you get this idea? The authorities have a variety of remedies at their disposal and there is no requirement that they waste everyone's time by applying increasingly more painful wrist slaps. They are entirely allowed to get straight to the point and make the problem go away now and for the future.

    6. Re:other options by sir_cello · · Score: 1


      The US is only as free as your cheapest law suit. Once you understand this you'll realise that both the EU and the US have their own unique problems and neither is really better than each other: they're both broken or good in different ways. Recently both were run by goons too: Bush on one side, Bertolusconi on the other.

  83. A fine is supposed to affect behavior by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    If the fine is too small and if the profits from continuing the bad behavior are too large, then the offending party has absolutely no reason for changing their behavior and they will continue to violate the law.

    A slap on the wrist fine never changes behavior of the offending party favorably. It does allow them to more effectively calculate the cost of continuing to break the law ("Screw you, E.U. Here's your money.").

  84. True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.Gate by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting
    True enough but this is a traffic ticket to Bill Gates. Not a traffic ticket to you and me. It always struck me as fundamentally unfair that traffic tickets are fixed and not based on income. Simply put 100 dollars is not the same to everyone. 500 million is petty cash to MS.

    A fine should at least make it unprofitable for me to commit the crime again. If I stole 1 million and was fined 1000 then that is not exactly going to stop me is it? So how much did MS make by violating the law? More then 500 million? Then they ain't gonna stop.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  85. Many future opportunities (smart move) by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

    First, establish the precedent with a fine that isn't outlandish. Wait for the appeals to go away.

    Then fine MS for abusing their monopoly powers in other areas. I can hear the cash register, can't you?

    "That'll be one internet browser violation ($1 billion), one office suite violation ($3 billion)..."

    word processor, internet browser,

  86. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    please provide your GPS coordinates and we'll be happy to comply with your request

    Ah, now you have us at a loss... GPS was an American invention which you guys invented and which you have now taken back from us. We no longer *know* GPS co-ordinates...

    Oh well, I guess we'll have to back to using maps as perfected by the Romans, Greeks and Marco Polo.

    ...and while we're at it, we'll have those back also!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  87. The are available free... by Osrin · · Score: 1

    ... at least according to this link, or am I missing something?

    http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpat en tlicense.asp

    "Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license"

    1. Re:The are available free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas."

      You call that free?

  88. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet the Sun never polled "the majority of people in the UK", it takes a General Election to do than and even then it sometimes fails to reach 50%.

    Yes, I know what you meant - but you were indulging in typical Sun tabliod-speak.

  89. Yabba Grabba Doobie? by spun · · Score: 1

    "Hey Barney, grab your glock, we're gwan ta pay a leel' visit to Mr. One-A-Day."

    Sorry, just can't picture it. ;-)

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  90. Re:SWAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh i know it. I was just distracted by my overall straightness. And whiteness.

  91. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Fine - they are unrealiable

    aaaaaaaaaa hhahahahaha hahahahahahaha ahahahaha

    hahahahah ahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahah

    ahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahaha

    hahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahah

    ahahahah ahahahahahaha ahahahahahaha hahahahaha

    hahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahah

    ahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha

    hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahah

    aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    what the fuck are you smoking?

  92. Re:Typical Europeans by geekoid · · Score: 1

    sure,
    Oh, and you can give us back ALL your cars.
    Don't forget not to use the internet.
    Or intel and amd chips.
    Stop using email
    No more Polio Vaccine
    Fine will stop using the plane, and you stop using the varies controls, metal composite, and factory management techniques crated by the US.
    (Your planes won't fly far, or very safely.)
    No dry babyfood
    No solar energy
    No more mamograms
    No pace makers
    No blood tranfusions

    In exchange, will take back any mitary aid you may need or want.

    You know, With Germany reunited, you might want to be kinder to your allies... ;)

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  93. Re:Inapproriate? Hardly. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    You might see it as stupid. I might see it as stupid. Most people will see it as someone feeling indignant about improper treatment. It's spin, nothing more. I highly doubt this is anything approaching the actual opionion on the matter.

    Large corporations such as microsoft simply do whatever they please until they get caught. The financial gain is high enough to warrant the miniscule fines imposed - and then they just keep on doing what they were doing before, until they get fined 4 years down the line for the same thing, all the while making buckets of cash.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  94. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    Certainly. You don't mind if we arm the nuclear weapons first, do you? Oh, and we'll ship them ballistically - they'll get there faster.

    Ah! Would this be those same rocket powered missiles as invented by Werner Von Braun of Prussian birth?

    Sorry...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  95. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)

    Brits are europeans now? Hmmmm..

    Main Entry: 1European
    Pronunciation: "yur-&-'pE-&n, -'pEn
    Function: adjective
    : of, relating to, or characteristic of the continent of Europe or its people

    Main Entry: Europe
    Pronunciation: 'yur-&p
    Usage: geographical name
    1 continent of the eastern hemisphere between Asia & the Atlantic area 3,997,929 square miles (10,354,636 square kilometers), population 498,000,000
    2 the European continent exclusive of the British Isles

    Nope. they arn't. we geta keep the jets. at least americans know who they are. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dic tionary&va=europe&x=0&y=0

  96. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  97. No offense but this sounds naive by hellfire · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but if you trade into the EU, then you are expected to obey the laws of that market. Doesn't matter where the head office is. I'd have thought that Bill would employ lawyers with a clue - at least enough of a clue not to make a stupid statement like this.

    I'm not trying to flame you here, but c'mon. Of course Microsoft knows this! This is politics and marketing spin. You appeal to the investors and consumers who don't understand politics, economics, and the law by giving them a highly emotional argument, especially one that turns the issue into an "us vs. them" argument and tries to make the EU sound unfair. It won't work on everyone, like slashdotters, who already know and no amount of spin will change our minds, and they can't make it sound any worse than we already think they are. Might as well scrap for a few extra minds somewhere who might as yet be undecided. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, pound on the desk.

    What I find interesting is the fact that the ommited the fact that they were found Guilty by the US and that these types of actions were in fact not permitted! However, the penalty phase broke down when we changed administrations and the US government settled. Again, pounding on the desk, and this time stretch the truth about the facts.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:No offense but this sounds naive by DrPepper · · Score: 1

      Whilst this may be spin, it is exactly the sort of comment that will only make things worse for Microsoft. If there is one thing that EU citizens hate (possibly more than the influence of the EU itself :-) ) is the idea that we should just sit back and let the US take care of everything. This is something that every EU citizen would agree with, irrespective of the issue or their position on it. I suspect that other markets around the world will feel likewise - each has it's own rules, and if you want to trade there you must obey the law.

      On your other point, I think that to Microsoft, because they settled with the US government, they therefore weren't found guilty. In their sideways logic, MS therefore see this as an approval of their practices. I imagine that they are trying to use this fact as evidence on their part in other cases around the world - look! the US government didn't find us guilty, so neither should you. However, as I pointed out above, each market is different and should make their own judgement.

  98. Re:Typical Europeans by mah! · · Score: 1

    While we're at it, please return the English, Spanish, etc. since they're European... and start speaking your own languages instead - thanks!

  99. Re:Inapproriate? Hardly. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    Microsoft associate general counsel for Europe Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement the fine was unjustified. "We believe it's unprecedented and inappropriate for the Commission to impose a fine on a company's U.S. operations when those operations are already regulated by the U.S. government and the conduct at issue has been permitted by both the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts," he said.

    "I'm sorry, but if you trade into the EU, then you are expected to obey the laws of that market. Doesn't matter where the head office is. I'd have thought that Bill would employ lawyers with a clue - at least enough of a clue not to make a stupid statement like this."

    There is prescidence for allowing this penalty to go through even on the U.S. side of Microsoft's operations. In the early 1990s, during the recession, the great State of California (excuse me, California Republic!) issued a corporate tax that was based upon the worldwide income of corporations operating in California. To my knowledge, the federal government did not intervene with this nor did NAFTA or the WTO strike it down. So I doubt Microsoft crying "uncle" will prevent the EU from doing whatever it pleases in this issue. If the EU was able to say "no" to Mr. Jack Welch, they can say "no" to Mr. Gates.

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  100. Dear Bill Gates by spun · · Score: 1

    I have some things for sale that might help your cause. Please visit my online catalog.

    Sincerly,
    Dr. Freidrich E. DeSpayr, MD, Ph.D, Ev.D
    Chairman and Chief Evil Officer, World Domination LLC

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  101. And Bill reaches for his wallet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do you have change for a Billion?"

  102. is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I know there's a bit more to it than that, but c'mon... Rather than open up some bits to competitors, they'll take a fine. I'd do the same.

    Bill Gates is worth 40 billion or such right? That's like asking me to pay a $600 fine, big whoop.

  103. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    So please explain "Alaska" and "Hawaii" to me in similar terms, if you please.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  104. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Good rant! Unfortunately you're about to be modded down by the mod's (wish I had points!). I totally sympathise with you though. I'm incredibly sick of these Euro-elite bashing the U.S.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  105. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by defMan · · Score: 1

    Some scandinavian countries (sweden and finland?) have this system where a traffic fine is based on income if i remember correctly.

    Seems fair to me.

  106. explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    URL to an article with a possible explanation about the "WMD" fiasco.. it fits with other data that can be found..

    http://rense.com/general50/sdef.htm

  107. cash on the dash... by nathan+s · · Score: 1

    Makes you wonder how much of this cash ever makes it back to the station.;-) My guess is, not much!

  108. Re:Inapproriate? Hardly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not really stupid, it's arrogant. It's another sign of the extreme arrogance that Microsoft operates with. They think that just because the US allows them to get away with bad behavior that everyone else should too.

    In the real world, companies have to operate under the laws of every country they operate in. If you open up a Saudi Arabian branch of your company, you can't make advertisements there with scantily-clad women, and complain when the Religious Police shut down your operations there that these ads are allowed in the US.

  109. What happens to the money? by rediguana · · Score: 1

    Sure, it is a little fine for MSFT, but what is going to happen to the money.

    Can you imagine what that could do for open source developers?

    BillG may not like paying a half billion euro fine, but think how pissed he would be if that money then went towards funding open source software development.

    Perhaps then he might not be so keen to get fined in the future...

  110. Re:"Need No DRM" (to the tune of "Yellow Submarine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a life

  111. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    Oh, and you can give us back ALL your cars.

    We'll just use the empty roads as runways for all the jet aircraft we'll now have.

    Don't forget not to use the internet.

    ...except, of course, the World Wide Web as invented by Tim Berners-Lee - that means all the eCommerce is ours also.

    No solar energy

    Erm, there's only a small part of Europe that actually gets much sun! You can have that one back, although we're keeping Stevie Ray Vaughan and Jimi Hendrix hostage for all your bare-faced cheek!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  112. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. So, everyone in DC is a fool. Yippeee.

    Doesn't make any one of 'em less of a fool, now does it?

  113. Lets flesh this out by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think the parent did justice to explaining this, so I just want to provide a quick example. Also this needs to be repeated over and over. One day I'll put something on my personal website about this, because this question is asked over and over and over.

    In your normal business environment, people compete for your business. They advertise, market, and change prices in order to try to do better than their competitors.

    The problem is a monopoly by definition has no competitors. Lets say you have a company which has agressively marketed RAM chips. You cut costs and make deals. This drives all the competitors out of the market and they close their doors. You now have a natural monopoly. This sometimes happens, and the government has to recognize it. If you are a natural monopoly, you fall under new rules because you have no competition.

    For example, as a monopoly, say you go to some PC manufacturer and demand they have to pay twice what they pay now? As a monopoly, the PC manufacturer has no recourse and you are now bullying them. Not fair, and illegal as a monopoly. If you had competition, and you did that to someone, the PC manufacturer would laugh their ass off and switch to another RAM provider. This is one example of general "price fixing."

    There are other examples, but that's the general idea. Competition means you have to fight to keep your customers. A monopoly means you can bully your customers in a way that's not fair to them. In general, competition is good because competition is the check against unfairness. This is why there is lots of talk about mergers and huge conglomerates who have too much control. Too much control is generally BAD, because the more control you have, the more prices you can fix. Most companies do more convoluted price fixing of sorts these days because that makes it harder to get caught.

    Something else that Microsoft did is give away their IE browser for free. Netscape had a browser which eventually cost money and people had to buy. IE stepped in and leveraged their current monopoly by giving away IE. They made huge amounts of money on the OS and office, but made IE attractive by making it free. This is like owning all the oil in the world and giving away a free car when someone buys enough of your oil. The oil may be marked up astronomically, but hey, free car! This will drive the competition for cars into the gutter as their cars still require oil.

    Note its also illegal in the US for companies to work together directly to fix prices.

    Thus ends the lesson.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Lets flesh this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something else that Microsoft did is give away their IE browser for free. Netscape had a browser which eventually cost money and people had to buy. IE stepped in and leveraged their current monopoly by giving away IE.

      Who's to say that the browser is supposed to be charged for or how much you charge? Maybe in the long run people will finally realize that you cant put a specific value on software like that - obvious exceptions being Office or the OS itself. At the time that there was supposedly a market for web browsers, Netscape was a buggy piece of shit and I wouldn't have ever wasted a cent on it anyways. I used to struggle with it and it never seemed to work right whether pages werent rendering correctly or the app was crashing - both in Linux and Windows. But complaining about MS giving away IE for free is like complaining about them giving away Wordpad or Calculator.

    2. Re:Lets flesh this out by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Such an argument completely misses the point of monopolistic behavior. Quality is a determining factor in all sales, of course, but under law, you can make a superior product all you want. What you can't do is leverage your market dominance to force another competitor out, no matter how he sucks. Microsoft didn't just compete on quality, they used their monopoly on the OS to make sure PC sellers didn't install netscape ("Install only IE or I'll make your OS prices go up") and by selling their software below cost, at zero cost. That's simply illegal because I could give away free cars all I like, but if I have a monopoly on oil I could just jack up the price of oil and try to squash research on fuel cells and other green energy resources to make up for the sale of the car.

      Think about it, had Microsoft competed only on quality and kept a reasonable price, competition would have ensued and maybe both browsers would have become BETTER! That's what competition does.

      Besides, calling netscape a piece of crap that rendered poorly is laughable. Sure it was, and so is IE... and still is. You are claiming Netscape was crap, but failing to point out IE was and still is crap. I mean are you that thick, or just a microsoft plant? :)

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    3. Re:Lets flesh this out by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You missed another important factor. A monopolist can produce basicly any product they like, and they can design it for their own benefit even when when customers dilike certain "features" or are even harmed by them.

      One example is that Microsoft was caught adding INTENTIONAL BUGS into a new operating system release. It was designed to intentionally cause the Lotus spreadsheet to crash. People who upgraded operating systems suddenly found Lotus bombing. Such customers were faced with three options:

      (1) Suffer with an unusable or unstable spreadsheet.
      (2) Revert back to the old operating system.
      (3) Switch to Microsoft's competing spreadsheet software, Excel. At the time Excel was a peice of crap compared to Lotus, but a working peice of crap is a lot more productive than better software that won't run.

      Those buying a spreadsheet for the first time would generally hear about Lotus crashing and would naturally buy Excel instead.

      One of the best features of free-market capitalism is that generall competition is a powerful driving force for companies to design the product to be exactly what the customer wants in order to capture more market share. As a monopoly, Microsoft has no motivation to design the product for the customers benefit. Microsoft knows that essentially 100% of the market will buy any half-way tolerable product no matter what they put in it.

      Microsoft cripples their products in a variety of ways. They cripple their products to make it as painful as possible to switch to a different operating system. They cripple their products to "encourage" people to buy only their brand of office applications. They cripple their products to leverage their way into server markets. They cripple their products to get profitable alliances with the RIAA and MPAA. The list goes on and on.

      What the customer wants the software is way down at the bottom of their list of priorities. *That* is probably far more harmful to the marketplace and to the public then any issues of monopoly pricing. A maliciously designed product is generally worse than an overpriced product.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  114. If they could charge more, why aren't they? by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they could charge more for their product, then why don't they do so now?

    Monopolies charge what the market will bear. This fine doesn't impact what the market will bear, so it shouldn't affect prices. Monopolies set prices at the level where any increase in price would decrease profits. They have no incentive to set it lower, and it would be stupid to set it higher (as it would decrease profits).

    Think of it from the other perspective. If a company received a sudden windfall of money, would you expect them to reduce prices? No, they would take the windfall and maximize profit with current prices. Giving the windfall a negative value doesn't change anything but the level of profit. The company will still set prices and production so as to maximize profit.

    1. Re:If they could charge more, why aren't they? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Monopolies charge what the market will bear.

      No, monopolies charge what they can get away with. The fine may be used to justify higher prices for Longhorn.

  115. Re:Oh, please... by Metasquares · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't want to get into a political debate, particularly not with a parent post that may be considered a troll, but using your evidence:
    "President Clinton (1998): 'One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.'"

    "In 2002, Al Gore said, 'We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.'"

    That's quite a logical leap in four years. It's possible that Iraq developed the aforementioned weapons in four years, but based on what the troops found in the country, such a program would be in its infancy at best.
  116. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Oh, and you can give us back ALL your cars.

    I'm guessing you've never heard of Gottlieb Daimler nor Karl Bens, eh?

  117. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so sick of all you US-hating, Europe-loving liberals. If you like it so much, FSCKING MOVE THERE. Oh wait, then you'd have to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, and 18% sales tax on everything, but you'd get free medical care that you'd have to wait years to receive, and a free education which is worth, well, exactly what you pay for it.
    I'm perfectly happy with my free education and medical care, thanks.

    Lets see, what has Europe produced in the last century or so?
    Colonialism
    Yes, the very idea of invading foreign countries of strategic importance, taking over their economies and then setting up puppet governments who rely on you for military defence is shocking, isn't it. I'm glad that in Iraq America is "opening up the economy" and "bringing democracy" instead.


    2 world wars

    How exactly did we "produce" two World Wars? Would you rather we'd appeased Hitler? Would you have been in favour of a more lenient Versailles treaty, or would that have been appeasment too?


    Communism
    Socialism

    Gotta love 'em.


    You fucked up the Middle East with your stupid dismantling of the Ottoman Empire
    You fucked up Africa

    Fair points, but America's fucked up its fair share of foreign countries too. That's just what powerful countries do. As for the Ottoman empire, it was actually propped up for a very long time (probably longer than it should have been, it was completely corrupt).

  118. Re:Typical Europeans by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    "- Macdonalds"

    Sorry, chap, but it is McDonald's... MC (Mc), not MAC.

    May you not address Lord McDonald in that manner either, or suffer his wrath...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  119. Re:Typical Europeans by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1
    Wait! You forgot to send back Eminem, Snoop Dog & co.

    I thought this was funny until you posted that, then I started thinking it wasn't actually a bad idea ;)

  120. "Death to all" mindset. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why _SHOULD_ microsoft go out of business?
    It is one thing to aim for fairness, it is another thing to just be blinded by hate.


    Yeah really. To think that the only punishment for any crime or even mere infringement is so... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for... so islamic.

  121. A Minor Set-back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....Compared to the wacking Linux is dishing out to them.

  122. $4/gal for gasoline by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, then you'd have to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline

    I live in California, You Insensitive Clod!

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  123. Hey, they broke the law.. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardess of who the company is, they broke the law.. so they have to pay the piper.

    Something tells me that the fine was worth it to them, an 'acceptable loss' to hold on to the market.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  124. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem.

    Main Entry: 1American
    Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
    Function: noun
    1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
    2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
    3 : a citizen of the U.S.
    4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

    Main Entry: Alaska
    Pronunciation: &-'las-k&
    Usage: geographical name
    state (territory 1912-59) of the U.S. NW N. America capital Juneau area 591,004 square miles (1,530,700 square kilometers), population 550,043
    - Alaskan /-k&n/ adjective or noun

    Main Entry: Hawaii
    Pronunciation: h&-'wa-yE, -'wa-"E also -'va- or -'wo-; sometimes -y&
    Usage: geographical name
    1 or Hawaiian Islands /-y&n/ or formerly Sandwich Islands /'sand-"wich/ group of islands central Pacific belonging to U.S.
    2 island SE Hawaii, largest of the group; chief city Hilo area 4021 square miles (10,455 square kilometers)
    3 state of the U.S. comprising Hawaiian Islands except Midway Islands; annexed 1898, a territory 1900-59 capital Honolulu area 6471 square miles (16,760 square kilometers), population 1,108,229

    Anything else you need?

  125. Re:this really pisses me off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a clue.

  126. This field is not so young. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When the field of computer science was still young, people focused on how you could make computers do useful things and how the technology could be improved upon. Nowadays it seems that the primary focus of the field of computer science has little to do with computers or science, but instead focuses on litigation, intellectual property abuse, monopoly-building and controlling the markets.

  127. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It always struck me as fundamentally unfair that traffic tickets are fixed and not based on income.

    Oh Christ, no. When was the last time you were in traffic court? People whine and cry and make up shitty excuses in front of the judge enough as it is, without adding income concerns into it. Add "But I only worked twenty-six hours this last few weeks, your honor" on top of the "But I was rushing my goldfish home to the aquarium" bullshit that everyone already goes on about, and your courtroom experience can last six hours instead of the usual three!

    Income-based fines would be more fair, but I hope to never see them. After the first hour sitting in court, I'll pay anything to get out of there, regardless of my income.

  128. Only another 82 fines like this ... by Pushnell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and perhaps Microsoft will consider changing their business tactics.

    $50b / $613m ~= 82, or 1.2% of their on-hand CASH.

  129. A mere snip at $699 per packet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So very true. I mean, linux is still value-priced, and the manufacturer's going down the toilet!

  130. The price of doing business by bitspotter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Had the EU (such as it was) approached Microsoft ten or fiteen years ago, and said: "We'll let you engage in anti-competitve practices in operating sytems, office applications, web browsers, and media players all you like for a crisp half-billion dollars, payable on delivery", do you think they would have taken the deal?

    They have $50 Billion dollars in cash. 1% of one's cash reserves (never mind revenues) is simply not a punishment.

    Imagine being taxed one percent of your life savings for a license to break all the laws you like. That sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

    The problem with fines is that business already thinks in terms of money. Punishments for breaking the law are intended to deter behaviour. Fines are instead framed by the company as just the cost of doing business.

    1. Re:The price of doing business by Tom · · Score: 1

      You didn't get it. This is the fine for having broken the law. It doesn't mean they can continue to do so. It's "stop and pay up", not or.

      With the current fine being larger than expected, you can be very sure that if M$ tries the "so what?" game, Monti will get nasty.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:The price of doing business by PeDRoRist · · Score: 1

      Actually, Monti could legally fine Microsoft up to 10% of their annual income, according to european anti trust laws. That would be about 3 billion dollars. So yeah, technically, Monti could get 5 times nastier. Or so.

      --

      Anything you do can get you slashdotted, including nothing.
    3. Re:The price of doing business by Tom · · Score: 1

      That are the fines for breaking antitrust laws. I'm sure there are other and additional fines for not paying up fines or ignoring a commission order.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  131. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    Anything else you need?

    Nothing else from Microsoft "Encarta", thanks!

    You still haven't explained why the British Isles, separated from mainland Europe by 20 miles of sea but connected via a tunnel, isn't part of Europe yet Hawaii, separated from mainland US by several hundred miles of sea and Alaska, separated from mainland US by several thousand miles of Canada, are parts of the US.

    Your opinion please, this time without the encyclopedia...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  132. What happens to the cash??!! by cmehta1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Agreed that 500-600 million is nothing for Microsoft, but what IF they took the money and used it to fund FLOSS. Assume the govts weasel 50% off the top! That leaves 250-300 million for FLOSS.

    This is where the real damage to MS could occur, if the penalty cash is dished out to the right FLOSS projects that threatens MS directly.

    Proposed split based on what I think would help FLOSS and hurt MS:

    50million for the Linux Kernel to get their security certifications finished for govt usage, driver improvements to the kernel, SE-Linux integration, whatever else Linus wants

    50million for Apache Webserver, Tomcat, and other Apache-based projects that really eat into IIS market share

    25million for OpenOffice with a focus on compatibility with MS Office.

    25million for GNOME & KDE, split evenly on whatever they want, but with a preference on creating a Win2k-style desktop emulator so the riff-raff can change their screensavers like before

    10million for plug-ins/features into Eclipse IDE that help emulate the best features of Visual Studio, and better integration of non-Java languages like Perl, PHP, C#/Mono, etc

    10million on Bitkeeper replacement and/or Subversion to get great source code control mgmt, tied into Eclipse IDE enhancements above

    10million on modeling tools for code or databases like SQL Navigator, or Rational Rose

    10million for PHP on whatever they think they need

    10million for Wine to get us closer to running lots of apps on non-MS Operating systems

    10Million for ***BSD Flavors [Just because they have created so much with so little :) ]

    10million for RMS and GNU with the promise he wont complain about everyone else's cash allotment

    AND
    25million for an investment fund that donates 50% of the yearly profits as grants to future promising FLOSS projects

    1. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      25million for GNOME & KDE, split evenly on whatever they want, but with a preference on creating a Win2k-style desktop emulator so the riff-raff can change their screensavers like before

      The German government are already funding an Outlook replacement for KDE. It would be nice to see similar ventures in future.

    2. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by Lairdsville · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would love to see the fine being spend on OSS, but this brings up an interesting conundrum. Microsoft is being fined for giving away software, yet you want to spend the fine on OSS projects who are also giving away software. Hmmmm, my brain hurts.

    3. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by cmehta1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't believe I forgot Samba.

      Samba needs 25 million for compatibility testing, tight integration with OpenLDAP, a nice hand-holding GUI install, slick GUI to manage users, groups, printers, etc like Win2K networks, and Active Directory replacement (hence the OpenLDAP integration request).

    4. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      Actually, the last part should read -

      $25 Million to the 'support f0rt0r' fund. You can just put that in my Swiss bank account. Thank You.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    5. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use it to buy cheap replacement software from India and Russia. Hehe. You slashdotters, you are so inconsistent in your thinking.

    6. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen is that the french farmers will gridlock france again and demand the money is spent on them.

      Or it'll be spent to fund some projects to get the new EU members running.

    7. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by timerider · · Score: 1
      Hmmmm, my brain hurts.

      because you don't see the difference between giving stuff away for free to induce addiction, and giving stuff away for free because you want your stuff to be free as in speech?

      bye,
      [L]

    8. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by BagMan2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, open source software can't make it on it's own, so you want to take the money people paid to Microsoft, presumably because they like the product (I know I like Windows), and give it to a bunch of losers whose product nobody is willing to spend a nickle on so maybe they can make it better. Yeah, that makes sense.

      Linux can't compete in the free market, so they want daddy government to bail them out, weenies.

    9. Re:What happens to the cash??!! by BagMan2 · · Score: 1

      Typical slashdot, if a point of view you don't agree with is expressed, you moderate it down. Wouldn't want the lemmings hearing the other side of the story, they might actually think it makes sense.

      You would think that Linux users would appreciate hearing some points of view that might explain why their love-toy (linux) can't compete.

      Here's a hint, quit crying about how Microsoft is a big bully and trying making a better product than they have for once. No, contrary to popular slashdot belief, linux is not a better product. Linux certainly has some stuff it does very well, but you need to have cross your T's if you want to be anything but a footnote.

  133. Hmm. by Amiasian · · Score: 1

    On the Mac Quicktime's not so bad. I do wish Apple would, in the consumer version, add fullscreen and playlists, though. If the competition has it for free, they should, too. But, file associations and "taking over" of file types just isn't a problem on the Mac.

  134. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
    And that sir is the prime time to attack - while the program is still in its infancy.

    I can't understand all the people who oppose the war because - the weapon programs we're only in their infancy - or he was only TRYING to aquire WMD.

    I own a home. I destroy hornets nests BEFORE they are complete. I don't wait for the buggers to finish first!

    Oh well, if only the US would stand down would we have peace in our times.

  135. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    While we're on the subject:

    pants = boxer shorts / Y-fronts not trousers

    football = played with a spherical ball

    fag = slang for cigarette not homosexual

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  136. Oversimplification and exaggeration by JMZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many MS file formats have been mostly deciphered and are generally becoming easier to decipher. There has been word processors for a long time that have been able to deal with Word documents pretty well - but we still see Word around to the extent that many would call it a monopoly.

    I'm not saying that fully open file formats wouldn't help - just that they are not necessarily the central issue.

    Having MS release their file formats (and Client-Server communication protocols) as an open standard would restore the Free Market

    Not really. For example, MS could safely release all of the WMP codecs and formats and still crush the "free market" in players by distributing a free player tied to its OS - that's why WMP is still an issue on the table with the EU folk.

    Closed formats are one piece in a big puzzle. There are many other possibilities for MS to abuse.

    Having MS release their file formats (and Client-Server communication protocols) as an open standard would restore the Free Market.

    To a certain extent, they have. .NET and general XML-ization have certainly made MS much more open. And MS would love to have legislators believe that these are large steps towards an open, competitive environment. Regardless of how open .NET remoting or a new Word format is, this kind of change will not make that big of a difference.

    In reality, there won't be big changes in the desktop market until Linux (or someone else) steps in with a significantly better, polished product, or until some government royally tromps MS with a motion intended to bust. I don't see the US doing the busting (economically unsound), and the EU likely realizes that serious action has a good chance of sparking a trade war.

    Even if MS halted all "bad behavior", their monopoly would continue for some time. As such, we'll have to wait for the slow progress of open software OS's to bash things back open.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  137. Microsoft: EUR 497 million EU fine too big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft: EUR 497 million EU fine too big
    IDG News Service 3/22/04

    Paul Meller, IDG News Service, Brussels Bureau

    Microsoft Corp. will be fined 497 million (US$610 million) by the European Commission on Wednesday for abusing its monopoly in computer operating systems, a person close to the company said Monday.

    Europeans agree on Microsoft fine Nebraska court resuscitates MS lawsuit EU Microsoft ruling could set precedent

    The fine, which was set late last week after settlement talks with Microsoft broke down, was backed by national competition regulators from the 15 Union member states Monday.

    Microsoft said the fine is too big. "In view of the absence of a clear legal standard under EU law, a fine of this size isn't warranted," said Tom Brookes, the company's spokesman in Brussels.

    On Tuesday, the fine is to be discussed by senior aides to all 20 commissioners before being brought up at the EC's final meeting on the case Wednesday morning.

    Microsoft would then be officially informed of the fine and sent a summary of the ruling by fax, shortly before Mario Monti, competition commissioner, holds a press conference to announce the decision.

    People close to Microsoft were speculating over the weekend that the commission would not issue any fine at all.

    "In previous antitrust cases, the commission has waived a fine in cases where the company involved didn't know it was breaking European antitrust law," the person said, adding "Microsoft could argue that it didn't know until now that its behavior broke the rules."

    "We have already told Microsoft many times that a negative ruling will incur a fine," said Amelia Torres, Monti's spokeswoman. "A small company could claim it didn't know the rules but not one the size of Microsoft."

    The Commission is expected to rule on Wednesday that Microsoft abused the monopoly position of its Windows operating system twice. By withholding vital information about Windows from makers of software for servers, the firm gained an unfair advantage over them in the market for server software; it also competed unfairly by bundling its Media Player software into Windows, the ruling is expected to find.

    The commission is expected to announce remedies to restore competition in these markets, requiring Microsoft to sell two versions of Windows to PC makers in Europe, one of them with Media Player stripped out.

    It would also have to share more secret Windows code to allow rival server software makers to compete with Microsoft server software more fairly, according to people close to the case. Computer servers drive networks of PCs.

    Some analysts said these remedies are more important than the fine in terms of making an impact on Microsoft, because the company has over $50 billion in cash reserves and has already set some of that aside for covering legal costs.

    After negotiations toward a settlement of the charges collapsed last week, Microsoft's chief counsel, Brad Smith, said the company would appeal any ruling at the European Court of First Instance.

    Paul Meller is Brussels correspondent for the IDG News Service.

  138. Re:Oh, please... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Clinton claimed that at the time he left office, Iraq had WMD. Didn't take much fooling there, I suppose.

  139. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah! Would this be those same rocket powered missiles as invented by Werner Von Braun of Prussian birth?

    Sorry...


    What are you sorry for? Doesn't matter where they were invented - they'll still turn your stupid country to glass.

  140. Along the same line.... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    I always thought the DOJ should have simply stopped squabbling over tie-ins and browsers and went straight for the cash! A really good Antitrust settlement would go after 120% of their cash!!!! That would force MS to stop price dumping and sell stuff at "fair value". If you wanted to be fair, you could force them to give it to the stockholders...then ban them from selling anymore for several years.

    People have to see that MS cash is it's life. They make outrageous expendatures trying to wipe out any competition. Wipe out the cash and you can curb much of MS influance!!!

    1. Re:Along the same line.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're just a fucking moron.

  141. Re:Or mabye.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The ONLY reason the EU is letting MS off the hook is that MS has the EU by the nuts; if the sourcecode got released, within a week windows would be unusable.

    That's the single most stupid comment on Slashdot today... and that's quite an achievement. How on earth would Windows sources getting released cause Windows to become (any more) unusable (than it already is)?

  142. Monopolies under produce by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

    The real problem is that a monopolist under produces its product. As it does not have to keep prices low in the face of competition, the monopolist prices its products at the level where increasing the product would decrease sales so much that it would actually *lower* profits. Decreasing prices would also lower profits, even though it results in increased sales.

    For example, assume that the monopoly good has an ideal price of $10. At $10, it sells a million units for total sales of $10 million. If you increase the price by 10% to $11, sales will fall by 10% to 900,000 units (note: the exact numbers are dependent on the good being sold; sales could just as well fall 15% or 70% on a 10% price increase; 10% is just an example) for total sales of $9.9 million. If you cut prices by 10% to $9, sales increase by 10% to 1.1 million for total sales of $9.9 million (the duplication is accidental and would probably not occur in a real example).

    Now apply a $5 million fine. This changes the revenue numbers to $5 million, $4.9 million, and $4.9 million. It still makes the best sense to price the product at $10 a piece, even though the profit is lower (this is why Microsoft will not be able to pass on the fine to its customers: monopoly prices are established based on the demand, not the supply costs).

    On the other hand, if you have a competitive market and everyone else is pricing the product at $9 and you price (the identical product) at $10, then no one will buy your product. Instead they will go to your $9 competitors. In that market, you will have to price at $9 to have *any* sales. Now, the total sales (between you and your competitors) will be 1.1 million units, 10% more than the monopolist produced (and a hundred thousand $ cheaper total for the 1.1 million than the 1 million).

  143. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hmm, yeah but $4 is what, about 50pence nowadays ? I think the worst thing Europe produced in the last few cenuries was America. Look at Australia, we may have screwed up the first time but we got it right in the end. Why can't all you try and be more like Australia ?

  144. How about going after OPEC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cartel is their middle name.

  145. Re:Typical Europeans by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    ...except, of course, the World Wide Web as invented by Tim Berners-Lee - that means all the eCommerce is ours also.

    Not much use without hypertext, as invented by Vannevar Bush.

    Or a graphical user interface - courtesy of Xerox.

    Or a hard drive - courtesy of IBM.

    Or an Intel CPU (and derivatives).

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  146. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually i used webster.com.

    Europe, my ignorant friend, is a continent; NOT a country. The USA, on the other hand, is a country; NOT a continent. I hope where ever you come from gets public education sometime in the near future.

    Quick recap so far:
    Europe, continent.
    USA, country.

    Now, if you would like to argue over the term America and why Hawaii and Alaska are part of it just look it up in the dic.

    the Americas /-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies

    I believe that both Hawaii and Alaska are in the western hemisphere... Give up, you can't win.

  147. Re:Typical Europeans by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    You still haven't explained why the British Isles, separated from mainland Europe by 20 miles of sea but connected via a tunnel, isn't part of Europe yet Hawaii, separated from mainland US by several hundred miles of sea and Alaska, separated from mainland US by several thousand miles of Canada, are parts of the US.

    The United States is a political construct. (North America is the geographical construct which forms the mainland United States)

    Europe is a geographical construct.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  148. Not much money to Microsoft by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

    $600 million? Bill Gates could find that in his couch...

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  149. Re:Typical Europeans by StarTux · · Score: 1

    "- All your BMW and Mercedes cars

    Fine - they are unrealiable: we are keeping the Japanese cars tho."

    Hehe.

    "> The jet engines from your aircraft (invented by Sir Frank Whittle in Britain in 1945)

    You can have the prototypes the he never managed to get working - took the Germans to do that, and the US to perfect them.
    "

    Actually, both got some facts wrong, Whittle did not invent the jet engine in 1945 and Germany did not "perfect" it:

    http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blj et engine.htm

    The Me262, the first operational jet fighter had much less reliable engines than the British fighter (somewhere around 100 hours before overhaul). Oh, by the way for quite sometime the most advanced and wildly used passenger jet engine was the RR RB211's...But, the most significant steps came with sharing information, just ask the Russians :).

    "> All your nuclear weapons and X-Ray machines (since radioactivity was discovered by the French Marie Curie in the 19th century)

    Yeah she really did a bang up job with that, eh?
    "

    Indeed, she glowed with that success for quite some time afterwords.

    "> The ideas that the Wright Brothers stole from Leonardo Da Vinci (Italian)

    OK here you have me - the wearable bat suits and cork screw helicopters powered by men walking around in circles are all yours."

    Haha, well there have been many others in between Da Vinci and the Wright brothers. Really though, who gives a crap about the Wright brothers? May have been the first, but were also one of the most sue happy companies in there day. Look what it got them :).

  150. Re:Or mabye.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CmdrTaco

    Please include a -1:Idiot moderation in the next slashcode release.

    Which will be about the same time Microsoft changes it's practices :D

  151. Re:Or mabye.... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    Biting the troll:

    You think Windows is usable now ??

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  152. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by southpolesammy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So how much did MS make by violating the law? More then 500 million? Then they ain't gonna stop.

    Yes, this is exactly the problem. Where I live, there is a suburb that has repeatedly dumped raw sewage into the river that runs through the city rather than send it to a waste processing facility because the EPA fine is less than the cost of the treatment. There is no incentive for the city to stop doing this as long as it costs less.

    The same analogy applies to Microsoft. If they make more by squeezing out the competition unfairly than they lose in fines, it's still a net gain for them overall and the next time around, there's fewer players to have to squeeze out. It's a win-win for them and a lose for everyone else (except the custodians of the fine money, it seems).

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  153. Re:TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "brainwashed"

    Ri-ight. So, quoting what people have said is equivilent to having been brainwashed?

  154. Why is this +3 interesting? tis Funny! by hellfire · · Score: 1

    This is hilarious! Sounds completely tongue in cheek to me. Am I missing something? Everyone else here seems to be taking it seriously.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  155. Re:Typical Europeans by migurski · · Score: 1
    - All your nuclear weapons and X-Ray machines (since radioactivity was discovered by the French Marie Curie in the 19th century)

    ahem - the Polish Marie Curie!

  156. Yes--there was price-fixing in vitamins by John+Murdoch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope--there was nothing funny at all about the price-fixing in vitamins led by Hoffman-LaRoche. I know a manager at a local plant of Hoffman-LaRoche, and used to work (in a different industry) with a man who at one point was HLR's general manager of animal vitamins. So I've heard about the court case (which went on for years, and included anti-trust action in the EU and in the United States, and possibly elsewhere).

    Is price-fixing in vitamins a big deal?
    First, we're not talking about somebody trying to corner the market in One-A-Day tablets. We're talking about a small group of chemical companies colluding to fix the prices of (and markets for) vitamins that are included in food products. That's things like the Vitamin D in your milk. And--more significantly in terms of market size--it is the vitamin supplements included in animal feeds.

    A brief discussion of animal feed
    I am a geek--but I am a geek who is heavily involved in 4-H (non-U.S. readers: 4-H is a program for American youth [mostly farm youth] funded by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.) People who are feeding animals frequently want to feed a "complete" feed--a feed that includes all of the nutrients an animal requires. Example: dog food. You don't want Bowser running down kids in the neighborhood to supplement the meager protein requirement you feed him: you want him to get all the nutrition he requires from his bowl. In the same way, most cat owners don't want little Fiona sneaking out to hunt down the local rodent population just because there isn't enough "meat, and meat byproducts" in her Fancy Feast. (In case you're curious, a "meat byproduct" is what goes crunch when little Fiona does manage to eat one of the local rodents.)

    Are you with me so far? If you live in the urban jungle you may not think of animal feeds beyond dogs and cats. And while that business is not small, there is also a huge business in other animal feeds. Think of cows, horses, chickens, and turkeys. In a nutshell, "chicken feed isn't chicken feed." Animal feeds are a multi-billion dollar business--and a major cost component for a feed manufacturer is the cost of the vitamin supplements included in the feed.

    So the manufacturers get together...
    It has been illegal for many years, in the United States, for manufacturers to compare prices or sales practices for common customers. But price and/or market collusion was not illegal in many other countries--and a number of multinational companies got a bit clever. If it wasn't illegal to collude on pricing in Switzerland (and in the 1980s it was not) you simply met with your counterparts in Switzerland, agreed on your prices and markets, and shook hands. According to a friend who was involved in some of these meetings (in Switzerland) everybody benefited: the people involved made their sales quotas, kept their profits up, and were spared the headaches of having to endure real competition. Sure--the customers (and ultimately the consumer) got rooked, but that was a "political issue." My friend (a U.K. citizen) assured me that Americans were far too zealous about such things. All of that ended when the U.S. government found out about it--Hoffman LaRoche, a Swiss company, settled for $500 million; BASF ("we don't make the products you buy, we just make them cost more") agreed to a fine of $250 million; other companies involved paid lesser amounts.

    Want to know more?
    One of the really cool things about the Web in general, and SlashDot in particular, is the ability to click on a link and go off on a tangent--learning something you'd never even thought of before. This link connects to a law firm involved in the matter.

    1. Re:Yes--there was price-fixing in vitamins by Paradigm+Lost · · Score: 1
      In the same way, most cat owners don't want little Fiona sneaking out to hunt down the local rodent population just because there isn't enough "meat, and meat byproducts" in her Fancy Feast.

      I've read a few articles in deadtree format that say Tiddles will still hunt even if fed a complete, filling and balanced diet. Cats have an instinct to hunt that may not be suppressable. Also, putting a bell on the cat doesn't help, because they learn to be quieter.

      I don't mind if they eat all the mice, I'm more worried about the poor birds.
      --
      -Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
  157. Re:this really pisses me off... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In response:

    1. Linux is just the kernel. An operating system sits round the kernel provides a user shell and tools to interface to and manage the hardware. A distribution provides additional tools that manage & change data-file types like MP3s, docs, etc. Windows is therefore a distribution that contains operating systems tools.

    2. Linux distributions are designed by organisations who create what they deem to be the most suitable suite of tools for their users - no different to what MS does with Windows.

    3. Linux distributions are varied - Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. provide a complete environment of tools, including media players, in their distributions - this is why lots of people buy those. However, the installation programs for all these distros allow any package to be removed at installation time provided that you choose to "Install indvidual packages".

    4. Other distributions like Linux From Scratch & Gentoo allow you to choose exactly what software to install from the beginning - you do not need to even have a GUI environment if you don't need one.

    In summary, when installing a Linux-based machine, you not only have a varied choice in what distribution you use but also what packages you choose. As such, you could choose Gnome or KDE media players, XMMS on any X-Windows environment or even a command-line media player. However, all of these players will share some common libraries and codecs in order to handle the media types that they do.

    Because of the totally proprietary nature of WMP, 3rd party tools do not have access to many of the Windows codecs and libraries that WMP uses. Therefore, the media player choice on Windows is much more restrictive.

    There is therefore no comparison between media players in Linux and in Windows.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  158. Not again. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    In which way, language, pictoral expresion, monogram, do we need to explain to people like you, obvisouly with weak powers of logical reasoning, that once a company achieves monopolic position in a market the rules that apply to it are different?

    It does not matter if the people are willing (as many obviosuly are) to give anything to this company in order to be infected by the latest worm or virus, and pay heftly for the benefit (junkies). No, what matter are this company practices, which are not only immoral but have been found to be illegal.

    What to they need to do in order for people like you stop defending them?

    Despair, frankly, despair....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Not again. by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has settle the issues you describe and has modified its business practices. Why punish it more? Why not just let people avoid the trouble of having to download WMP separately after they buy Windows?

      You don't realize it but you are proving my point. If Windows stinks so much, then the industry is RIPE for competition. It's funny how people miss that.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  159. Doubt it by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm pretty sure that at least one of the European Union countries is involved in Microsoft's Shared Source program. If they don't pay the fine, the European Union could seize the copyright (in lieu of payment of the fine), get a copy of the code, and sell the source code to one of their own software companies. That would presumably be worth the 500 million euros, even ignoring any other assets that may exist.

    I'm pretty sure that would be a violation of international law. I don't believe there's anything in international law that allows governments to seize copyrights as remediation in lieu of fines. I'm also pretty sure that MS made it so that no one who participates in Shared Source can do anything worth a damn for similar reasons as you outline.

    1. Re:Doubt it by thorgil · · Score: 1

      but according to Bill, copyright is PROPERTY ( as in IP).
      property can be extradited right? ;)

      --
      Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
    2. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell not? If you're in a homeowner's association, you can lose your house for failure to pay their damn fees even if the fees are a few hundred and the house is worth hundreds of thousands. Talk about OVERKILL. It's repulsive but it is how it is in the USA (CA, specifically).

    3. Re:Doubt it by quasimodal · · Score: 1

      International Law? Judges can rule anyway they want. How do you think Bushy got in the whitehouse. And now that sleezebag Scalia is refusing to recuse himself in a definite conflict of interest. But what would you expect from a radical freak like that. Judges always feel they're above the law. Time to start jailing the bastards.

      --
      Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
    4. Re:Doubt it by k_head · · Score: 1

      If MS refuses to pay the fine then their property can be confiscated. Just like if you don't make your car payments your car can be confiscated. There is nothing illegal about that. When a judgement is entered against you you must pay. The govt can literally drain your bank accounts at will.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    5. Re:Doubt it by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      From time to time I see this sig:

      Nothing is immoral once approved by government.

      Go. Figure.

    6. Re:Doubt it by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1

      International law has very little to do with it. MS has subsidiaries in the EU. Eg. Microsoft UK. These companies as EU companies have to comply with EU law. It will be them that are prosecuted.
      It would be like any non-payment of fine case. The govt. send the bailiffs... I think that they would be more likely to take MS holdings, like offices (nice real estate)...

    7. Re:Doubt it by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I don't believe there's anything in international law that allows governments to seize copyrights

      "international law" is practically non-existant. On the other hand I can tell you that under US law copyrights are definitely revokable when a court rules that that copyright has been abused. The material in question then falls back to the public domain.

      I don't know EU law, but I'd assume they have similar rules. Leveraging copyright powers as part of illegal anti-trust violations could certainly qualify as abuse of copyright, and refusing to pay lawfully ordered court damages could certainly escalate the damages to to full blown revokation.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Doubt it by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      As George W. Bush has shown, Internatioanl Law is an interesting concept, but only that, a concept.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    9. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, trite AND redundant. Good accomplishment.

    10. Re:Doubt it by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      Hey ! I'm on his side :-)

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    11. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, if it isn't prohibited, it's allowed.
      Second of all, international law is for asswipes. Bush Jr demonstrated that if you want you can fuck the UN and international law in the ass and come out on top.

      Why should we care about a crappy US monopoly? The current punishment is just right. MS will appeqal of course, but they'll lose. As I said, nobody likes to be pushed around by a US monopoly. So anyway, MS will lose, and it will either comply and begin to play fair, or they will get fined to death, as they should be.

      Fuck Microsoft. Fuck America. Down with the system I say.

  160. Silence by kop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The strange thing is the eerie silence in the european media about this kind of stuff. Or is it just me? I love the americans for their angry websites and wild discussions when stuff like this happens. I have to read about this and on an americam website. Should i as a dutchmen check german websites or learn french or swedish to hear about this ?

    1. Re:Silence by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to:
      Tweakers.net
      Webwereld.nl

    2. Re:Silence by hermooz · · Score: 1

      Should i as a dutchmen check german websites or learn french or swedish to hear about this ?

      If you prefer, you could take a course in italian. There's been pretty a good coverage down here ;-)

  161. Re:This is not courage, it is GREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ooh, the Fox News viewpoint -- which is, as usual, right-wing reactionary bullshit. The European Commission actually takes anti-competitive behaviour of monopolies and cartles seriously (unlike the U.S.), and it has imposed enormous fines on European companies in the past.

  162. In order to spin anything.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... you normaly needs a surface where to spin it, or at least a credible frame of reference.

    Otherwise you just look silly.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  163. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by bonch · · Score: 1

    True enough but this is a traffic ticket to Bill Gates. Not a traffic ticket to you and me. It always struck me as fundamentally unfair that traffic tickets are fixed and not based on income. Simply put 100 dollars is not the same to everyone.

    The amount of someone's income doesn't change how much everything else costs. If I make a lot of money but still live in a $500/month apartment, and I get a $500 ticket, you've still taken my rent money.

    Basically you're saying it's "worse" for a rich person to break the law than a middle-class person, because you're assigning higher value of punishment to someone who makes more money. That's "fundamentally unfair." I could have sworn being fair meant being equal to everyone...

  164. MWUH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!...Death to the Borg! by alchemist68 · · Score: 1

    I hope this cramps ol' Billy Boy's day a little. M$ deserves to be kicked with steel-toed boots every once in a while (and lot more often too) because the U.S. Justice Department (under the Bush Administration) sided with big business - BASTARDS!

    What the EU should do then is poor that money into a really focused Linux development effort to infect the Borg and bring freedom, peace, and prosperity to the world.

  165. A victory of Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This case has nothing to do with protecting the interests of consumers. It is only a case of competitors such as Real whining because they can't offer anything better than Windows Media Player that's compelling enough for a consumer to download, even for free, so they want Windows to ship without a media player, so the consumer is hindered, and must go download it from somewhere. At best they hope they can get some OEMs to ship Windows with their player instead.

  166. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by pclminion · · Score: 1
    So how much did MS make by violating the law? More then 500 million? Then they ain't gonna stop.

    1. Fine Microsoft $500 million.
    2. Give $500 million to Open Source development foundations.
    3. Who's laughing now, Billy Boy?

  167. A Sad Day by zekepress · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft is not being fined for violating anybody's individual rights. The company never put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy Microsoft products. Microsoft is being fined for being a good business: too good I guess. It's a sad day when achievement is punished and failure is rewarded. That is exactly what this fine and all of antitrust law amounts to.

    1. Re:A Sad Day by demon · · Score: 1

      So a corporation throwing their weight around, and forcing competitors out of the market, is just fine, and no one should say anything? I really hope you're kidding. There needs to be responsibility, and there needs to be ways to prevent companies from forcing others to do what they want by virtue of their size (like going out of business because Big Company X has decided "we want this market, it's ours now!")...

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  168. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    USA = United States of America.

    EU = European Union

    Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) and (Southern) Ireland are all in the EU. They all have (some degree) of self-government (e.g. taxation) with some centralised policies from the EU.

    Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, Texas, etc. are all in the USA.They all have (some degree) of self-government (e.g. taxation) with some centralised policies from Washington.

    I agree that the EU is not all of Europe and that the unification in the EU is not as tight as in the USA but it is still a union of which The British Isles are all a part of.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  169. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by juhaz · · Score: 1

    It always struck me as fundamentally unfair that traffic tickets are fixed and not based on income.

    Around these parts they are.

    Here you go, now that is what I call a traffic ticket.

  170. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can we please have back...All your nuclear weapons

    Please.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    *sigh

  171. Re:E500M? We got that covered. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
    That's almost too good... pad it up with a few hundred words, do something fancy to it in word, and sell it to M$ as a "business case"... Welcome to the world of "consulting"...

    All we need is PowerPoint and it's ready for a no-bid sole-source government contract

  172. Re:Typical Europeans by jafac · · Score: 1

    As a proud, Patriotic, (constitutional constructionist, *not* Republican, thankyouverymuch), red-blooded American. . . :
    LMAO.

    You can HAVE the Mercedes and BMW's back. (taken a look at the 04 Beemers. Why did they abduct Honda's designer and force him to work for them?) As long as I can keep my Porsche.

    - - -
    Jolly good show on fining Microsoft. I'll bet you a Canadian dollar that they tie it up in appeals so long, that inflation erodes the fine down to nothing. (or that they find the right judge to bribe and get out of it, like they did here in the US).

    And do the whole world a favor, and just switch to Linux already.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  173. Re:Typical Europeans by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    P.S. From webster.com:

    continent - one of the six or seven great divisions of land on the globe

    Our particular division of land contains some of the countries of Europe and some of the countries in Asia. i.e. you could travel entirely by land from France (in Europe) to India (in Asia).

    Webster's definition here is therefore incorrect - so how can I accept the definitions you have been throwing at me?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  174. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by eofpi · · Score: 1

    Last time I saw a story on this, it was mentioned that the EU can fine up to 10% of MS's worldwide revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if that's significantly less than their profit margin, so even a settlement to the fullest extent of EU law wouldn't dissuade them, unless they were barred completely from the EU member states (and that would wind up screwing the users a lot more than it would screw Redmond).

    --
    Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
  175. But what do they do with the half billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rechon the EU should declare a continent-wide "Microsoft monopoly party". Free beer and food, paid for by MS corp and everybody's invited!

  176. Microsoft wins another one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Microsoft is a smart organization. They've successfully ensured that the EU decision will not materially improve competition. The EU's ruling is too limited to actually improve competition.

    The big problem is that the EU will not require that the critical interfaces (APIs and data formats) be made publicly available and royalty-free. The EU might require some royalty-encumbered licensing, but that's worthless. There are many products that can actually partly compete with Microsoft in the marketplace (in spite of Microsoft's illegal restraints of trade) -- but most of them are open source software (OSS). OSS will not receive any kind of useful levelling of the playing field from this ruling, because royalty-encumbered licenses are usually written in a way that prevents OSS implementation. Even the proprietary companies can't compete; royalties always discriminate against those who have to pay them.

    The EU fine isn't a useful deterrent. Microsoft can delay that for a long time, and then just treat the fine as a cost of doing business. The EU is large enough that they can pay the fine, and make more money than the fine, indefinitely.

    A larger fine wouldn't be a good idea either; the goal shouldn't be to put Microsoft out of business (okay, some people think it should be, but I don't agree). I think the goal should be to restore competition in the marketplace. And this fine won't do it, because it doesn't really get at the root of the problem: the problem is both secret interfaces and control over distribution. This EU ruling only deals with control over distribution, so the weed will just grow back.

  177. To really punish them by unmuzzled+and+mean · · Score: 1

    they will take 10-20% of that money and stick it in a trust that hires developers to produce Free Software full time!

  178. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oppression of the linear!!!! Or, err, flat?

    My point is, why is that the flat amount is the egalitarian option? Why can't some other relation be equal? Would you say that everyone should pay a flat amount of taxes? Maybe you would say everyone should pay a flat rate of taxes, but not amount. And this is what is being said here: a flat rate may be more fair.

  179. Re:this really pisses me off... by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    You are almost so ignorant as to not desirve a response. I suspect you are an astroturfer perhaps

    The reason all that second and third party middleware works so crapply is the reason Microsoft is being fined. Microsoft doesn't allow access to it's API and methods so others can compete on a level playing field. That is why they are a monopoly and are in hot water.

    Besides that WMA and Microsofts other propritary formats are pure crap.

    Asshat.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  180. why should they bother pay?? by madshot · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Microsoft, why not just say "We are not paying and we will pull all of our products off your shelf and reject any licenses from your government office for updates to any Microsoft products".

    --
    Obama = Socialism.
  181. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll roll with that, but i will not call brits europeans. They are much to good for that title.

  182. US money - Europe by Hays · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can see that the Anti MS sentiment is strong enough for everyone to overlook this, but doesn't it seem a bit unfortunate for half a billion US dollars to fly off to fill some European government treasury? I mean if this was a company we liked it might seem a bit like the EU was overstepping their bounds. Imagine if they fined Google half a billion dollars for search engine antitrust. (a bit ridiculous, but hey)

    We have pretty significant trade deficits already.

    from http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/20/news/economy/trade _deficit/

    "Exports to Western Europe slipped to the lowest level since 1997"

    "On an individual country basis, the U.S. trade deficit with Germany set a record in December at $4.1 billion, fueled by a record $6.3 billion in imports"

    1. Re:US money - Europe by dackroyd · · Score: 1

      pointing out the (apparently not so) obvious.....

      They're being fined for their behaviour in the products they released in Europe, which hurt European consumers and Europeans businesses, who because of Microsofts monopoly tactics had to pay higher prices for software in Europe.

      So Microsoft is just bringing less bacon back to the US, the EU isn't gaining at your cost.

      --
      "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    2. Re:US money - Europe by boomka · · Score: 2, Insightful
      To _sell_ their products in Europe, MS opened the offices that are their represantation there. They can effectively be treated as companies based and operating in Europe, even though they are just departments in MS.

      It's only fair that they should obey the local laws.


      Think of it this way - if you are a worker (selling your labor) in a foreign country, you should still obey that country's laws. And if you park illegally on your neighbour's lawn, you will be fined.

      --
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
      H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
    3. Re:US money - Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see that the Anti MS sentiment is strong enough for everyone to overlook this, but doesn't it seem a bit unfortunate for half a billion US dollars to fly off to fill some European government treasury?

      Microsoft have been abusing their monopoly for years to the detriment of European citizens. Those "half billion US dollars" don't all come from the USA you know. Next time you see a "Windows worm estimated to have caused XXX kajillion dollars in damages", please remember that those worms don't just affect USA companies. Next time you see Microsoft kill competition by bundling applications with their operating system (virus scanners next, right?), remember that some of those companies were European.

  183. Re:"Need No DRM" (to the tune of "Yellow Submarine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Standing Ovation! :)

  184. SEC by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    Gates gave everyone the finger, and dumped all his stock?" Imagine what would happen to today's economy if Bill was pissed off enough to dump everything?

    Well, the answer to that is simple. The SEC wouldn't let him.

  185. Re:Typical Europeans by whittrash · · Score: 1

    You have been exposed to "Charmed" and "Dawsons Creek"? You are the victims of weapons of mass destruction! My sympathies to you all.

  186. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see anywhere in the definition that says the landmasses have to be a non-concurrent piece to count.

    Europe touches Asia, North America touches South America... I'm not seeing any break in logic. They are all "great divisions of land on the globe."

    Webster's definition is therefore 100% correct, you are just assuming things that arn't true. Accept it.

  187. Puny Americans! by reignbow · · Score: 4, Funny
    They have not yet seen the true greatness of the European Comission's plan. The true scope of this strike will unrevel over the years. It goes something like this:
    1. Fine Microsoft scary amount of cash (just for show)
    2. Have Microsoft appeal in the most painstaking, bogged-down way imaginable
    3. Watch incredible amounts of $$$ flow into the European legal business and become EUR=> Profit
    Do you now see the brilliance? All that cash being siphoned off from America's flourishing legal system, will be transferred directly to Europe. And the best thing is, Microsoft is doing all the dirty work for us!
    --
    Divide et impera!
  188. How will this help? by HadleyRille · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happens if none of Microsoft's appeals work, and they have to pay the fine? Will things improve for anyone? Microsoft can simply think of this as part of the cost of doing business in Europe and pass the extra cost onto YOU. Worse, Microsoft could be encouraged to continue their predatory practices because, heck, they've already paid for their license to do so.

    What should REALLY happen to Microsoft:
    1: The company should be split into two, one that sells Windows, and one that sells all of the Applications and addons like Office, IE, Windows Media, MicroTunes, etc. These companies should have no financial relationship with each other except:

    2: The OS company should be forced to lower their prices by however much the App company charges for the unbundled pieces. For example, if the App company charges $19.95 for Windows Media, Windows itself should get cheaper by that amount. Think what that would mean for IE! If the App company wants anyone to buy their browser over free options like Mozilla, it really needs to be better than Mozilla. Wow. Competition based on merit....

    3: The App company should have to freely publish their file formats. When everyone who has a word processor or spreadsheet application can easily read and write the Office formats, users won't be forced to use Microsoft products if they don't want to. If the products REALLY ARE better, people will use them, but not because they have to.

    None of these thing should be objectionable to Microsoft if they actually have the best products and can legitimately compete on the basis of merit.

    I know, it'll never happen.

    -John

    1. Re:How will this help? by Zoolander · · Score: 1

      We can only dream...
      In a perfect (well, better anyway) world, that could happen

      --
      Meep.
  189. some relevant quotes from 2002 by gomel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This article was actually on Worldcom but has relevant thoughts on Microsofts role. It spells out, why it makes sense for the government to punish any company for illegal/anti-competitive behaviour harshly. You tell everybody that crime does not pay off and you do not have to punish everybody that often. Indeed, the US has used that philosophy in foreign relations during the decades of the cold war.

    Friday, 5 July, 2002, 14:42 GMT 15:42 UK
    Tough bosses reap what they sowed

    But many critics say the tone for the aggressive business culture of the 1990s was set by the fact that Microsoft was allowed to get away with illegal bullying tactics and yet has still to be handed any punishment.

    Ellison: believes Bill Gates calculated benefits would outweigh possible penalties

    Larry Ellison, the head of the Oracle software firm, told the BBC that Bill Gates of Microsoft had calculated that the possible penalties from its aggressive illegal behaviour would be dwarfed by the gains from putting its competitor in internet browsers, Netscape, out of business.

    "Microsoft now has a monopoly on browsers," Mr Ellison said. "We know it's of huge benefit, huge value to Microsoft - will there be a corresponding offsetting penalty? Who knows? "It's like robbing the bank, getting $50bn or $100bn out of the bank and then they fine you $10,000 for having robbed the bank. "If you have a very small penalty for a very huge robbery, then from Microsoft's standpoint breaking the law turned out to work quite well."

    Many people leapt to Microsoft's defence when it was found guilty of illegal practices, arguing that the company's status as a great US success story justified leniency. Indeed, the incoming Bush administration took the pressure off the Microsoft by abandoning the efforts made by President Clinton's officials to break up the Bill Gates empire.

    But in making that decision, President Bush may have left himself open to charges that he was indicating a willingness to tolerate an arrogant and bullying business culture that appears to have played a key role in the shocking financial scandals that have emerged in the past year.
    --
    Fight Frist Psoting!
    Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
  190. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    My point is, why is that the flat amount is the egalitarian option? Why can't some other relation be equal? Would you say that everyone should pay a flat amount of taxes? Maybe you would say everyone should pay a flat rate of taxes, but not amount. And this is what is being said here: a flat rate may be more fair.

    If you really want true fairness, you have to ditch the concept of "speeding" tickets entirely, and instead, ticket bad drivers. That means people who speed, but who are safe drivers don't get tickets. People who observe the limit, but weave all over the road in their SUV while babbling into their cellphone, or who do 40mph in rush-hour, forcing everyone behind them to percolate to a slow boil.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  191. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    Yawn. It is entirely possible, and indeed desirable, for patriotic Americans to look at specific things that other countries do better than we do and say, "That's a good idea, let's try it over here." The idea that there is one specific "American Way" which is automatically better than everyone else's way, and which can never ever be modified with ideas from outside our borders, strikes me as absurd, repulsive, and -- I have to say it -- un-American.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  192. Re:E500M? We got that covered. by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

    And it would have to be a single slide. Just one picture of "Chewbacca", and it's all said and done...

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  193. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by log2.0 · · Score: 1

    yeah right. Once the EU gets the cash, it will go into their bank account and be used up in the normal stuff that they spend money on.

    It would be way cool if that happened though :)

    --
    Can your karma go above being Excellent?
  194. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should introduce a final sanction for multinationals who try this

    loss of copyright protection within the eu

    now that would *HURT* microsoft badly

  195. Hahaha! This is nothing for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft has 50 billion in cash!

    Do you hear, EU? They got 50 billion!

    This fine is petty cash for them.

    Haha, can't you come up with a real man number?

  196. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ooga-Booga.

    Caveman Ogg says yous can have all the pissing wars you want over who invented what first. But me wants all derivative works from fire and wheel for me and my tribesmen.

    Ooga-booga. Use anything else not related and developed entirely independently. Just don't use any technology (or it's derivative) that was made possible fire and/or wheel.

  197. More Like A Liability, look at the security issues by bADlOGIN · · Score: 1
    When talking about a couple of quarters ago, Microsoft CFO John Connors said it himself here:

    "Security concerns diverted the focus of our customers, our sales force, and our channel away from closing new deals," Connors said.

    Of course, it's even more of a liability for the poor id10ts who run or support their crap.

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  198. Looks to me like straight-up extortion by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    "They have deep pockets and nobody much likes them, lets shake them down for a few million."

    1. Re:Looks to me like straight-up extortion by radja · · Score: 1

      bit like fining a maffia-boss? sorry.. they did the crime. now pay the fine. it's too low to matter anyway...

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  199. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Talence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about we just get rid of people who need to bash others so much and cite silly historical issues that no one is really in a position to change anymore?

    No one is coming to YOU personally for help for anything. You have no power. Your "don't come to us" really means "don't come to the powerful folks in my country's government who probably won't even talk to me if they saw me in the street".

    Please go back to your troll-cave.

    Thanks.

    Bye bye.

    --
    I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
  200. Alternatives by sirbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Europeans think Microsoft is unfair with their products, there is an easier solution that levying fines upon the company: stop buying the product. If everyone in Europe did just that then things would be much better for them. On the other hand, if the Nation of Europe's government wins out with this fine then what Bill ought do is be be like John Galt and close down every European operation plus terminate all Microsoft exports to Europe. Granted, Microsoft would loose a ton of money, but it would probably hurt Europe Microsoft than Microsoft. On the other hand, if Microsoft is as unfair as the Europeans seem to think that they are then they should be able to fare just fine without Microsoft. Being one who uses Apple and Linux exclusively, I personally believe either of these two scenerios would be better than levying fines since it takes the moral high ground of free wil and, more importantly, also lets the Europeans get their hands on the cool (ie non-Microsoft) toys!

    --
    "The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
    1. Re:Alternatives by joonasl · · Score: 1
      If Europeans think Microsoft is unfair with their products, there is an easier solution that levying fines upon the company: stop buying the product.

      ..as many European governments and institutions have allready done (e.g. the city of Munich). However, changing the whole IT infrastructure of hundreds or thousands of companies, governmental institutions and organizations is not easily or quickly done.

      On the other hand, if the Nation of Europe's government wins out with this fine then what Bill ought do is be be like John Galt and close down every European operation plus terminate all Microsoft exports to Europe.

      ..and this will never happen, since around 40% of Microsofts net revenues comes from Europe and Microsofts shareholders would probably not be very happy if that revenue would be lost. Furthermore, it would probably be a god send to all Microsofts competitors (Linux distros and Apple) since the revenue previously fattening MS's pockets would go to them.

      On the other hand, if Microsoft is as unfair as the Europeans seem to think that they are then they should be able to fare just fine without Microsoft.

      This is not an intentional troll, but I'm a bit surprised with the attitude expressed in several of the post on this subject mostly from people in the US. The view seems to be that EU has no right to fine Microsoft for violating the EU anti-monopoly laws, since MS is an american corporation. However, if MS wants to do business in EU (which it definately does, as expressed above) it has to play by the European rules. For example, the americans would probably be quite upset if a dutch company would start selling cannabis in the US and would state that the americans have no right to punish it for it's actions since it's not an american corporation.

      --
      "There is a terrorist behind every bush"
    2. Re:Alternatives by sirbone · · Score: 1
      However, changing the whole IT infrastructure of hundreds or thousands of companies, governmental institutions and organizations is not easily or quickly done.

      Then they should not have chosen the Microsoft platform. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to go that route. If they do not like it now then they should "eat their own dogfood."

      The view seems to be that EU has no right to fine Microsoft for violating the EU anti-monopoly laws, since MS is an american corporation.

      It is the law that is unjust regardless of the fact that MS is an American company. If a group of individuals want to do business somewhere then no one has a right to force their will upon them anymore than the individuals of the company have a right to force their will upon anyone else. I'd say the same about the US politicians forcing their will upon the employees of Microsoft. I suggest reading "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat to understand exactly why such laws are unjust.

      For example, the americans would probably be quite upset if a dutch company would start selling cannabis in the US and would state that the americans have no right to punish it for it's actions since it's not an american corporation.

      And US drug laws are as wrong as the EU laws fining Microsoft. That Dutch company should be able to sell its goods in the US! Neither my government nor anyone else has the right to stop them. So smoke up!

      --
      "The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
  201. Re:Or mabye.... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    The ENTIRE source code.

  202. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Yawn.

    The average Eruocrat's response to most *anything* Americans say...

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  203. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People get those too.

  204. Re:Inapproriate? Hardly. by Oloryn · · Score: 1
    I'd have thought that Bill would employ lawyers with a clue - at least enough of a clue not to make a stupid statement like this.

    Maybe they're getting their new lawyers from the same place the SCO Group is.

  205. Re:Typical Europeans by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Before you bomb us Europeans, can we please have back
    >- All your BMW and Mercedes cars

    O.K, first we are going to have take off the tires (Goodyear) and strip out all the hoses. We are going to have to yank out the radio (transistors) along with any computer your car has. Sorry, the electronic ignition will have to stay with us too.

    There goes "fine european handling" as you move back to oxcart wheels.

    Also, we will take back refridgeration and air conditioning. You won't be able to run them anyway without electricty (Westinghouse). Your going to have to go back to using ice from lakes frozen in winter. Sorry.

    Also, we take back nylons, disposable razors (Gillette), and hair dryers. Your women will look like cave men again.

    > we'd like to keep a copy of "The Simpsons" just to remember you guys by!

    And what do you plan to watch it on??? Television is ours (Farnsworth), and even if you plan other activities at night it will have to be by flame as the light bulb (Edison) is ours too.

    So when we finally settle up, you will want us to bomb you just to put you out of your misery.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  206. In other news by melted · · Score: 1

    Microsoft raises the price of Windows by 10 dollars and Office by 20 dollars in EU to offset the losses incurred.

  207. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I own a home. I destroy hornets nests BEFORE they are complete. I don't wait for the buggers to finish first!

    Are you equating the Iraqi people to insects?

  208. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    Posts like the ones I was responding to merit a yawn because they're so trivial and repetitive. Sometimes I wonder if there's a Mindless Super-Patriot's Book Of Dumb Arguments floating around that all the right-wingers pull out whenever anyone starts talking international politics. Real patriotism (which bears very little relationship to the Fox News / GWB variety) requires thought.

    Also, please learn to spell.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  209. What are they thinking? by slasher999 · · Score: 1
    "refusal by Microsoft to share more information about its products with competitors"


    WTF? Is this business or a grade school playground? I enjoy blasting Microsoft as much as anyone, but who the hell thinks they need to share anything about their products other than the price with anyone? Complete morons, IMHO.

    1. Re:What are they thinking? by smash · · Score: 1
      The rules change when you're considered a monopoly.

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  210. Every time MS has to pay out... by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... people say "oh, it's chump change."

    Well, chump change adds up.

    Add this money to the payouts that have come before it, and the ones that will come in the future.

  211. Read the bible by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    100 to a rich man is not the same as 100 to a poor man. Even jesus got that one.

    If I make 1000 dollars a month and I am fined 500 then that is half my income gone. If I make a 10000 a month and you fine me 500 then am I suffering the same?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  212. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And North Korea? Pakistan? China? The bits and pieces of the former Soviet Union.

    Funny how none of the real possessors/proliferators get mentioned by the promoters of the hornet's nest scenario.

    Of course they might actually put up a fight.

    Oh, and don't forget the biggest proliferator of them all...oops, that would be the US.

    Insightful? Only to retards.

  213. Re:this really pisses me off... by classic66coupe · · Score: 0

    to jkcity {nelson} haha {/nelson}

  214. Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the events described in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged are coming into fruition.

  215. There's wrists and then there's wrists. by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Well, half-a-billion euros sounds like a lot of money. It even sounds like a lot of money when your translate it to US$616 million. But when you translate it to a Microsoft fiscal calendar (about 1 week of gross revenue) it does sound like a slap on the wrist!

    I'm reminded of that Simpsons ep where Burns is caught dumping nuclear waste in a city park and fined some huge sum. He says something like, "As long as I have my checkbook out, I'll take that statue of Justice too."

  216. Re:Oh, please... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1, Redundant
    The program wasn't in it's infancy. There's no evidence that there was any programme whatsoever (links welcome).

    For that, we killed how many thousands of civilians with bombing?

  217. Back to the issue at hand, MS has the right to... by nazzdeq · · Score: 1

    ...bundle other apps w/ their OS. They have to in order to compete. It's just that the idiots in the US and European courts don't have a clue along w/ a lot of the anti Microsoft crowd. I'm not really a big MS proponent, but they have to have the right to compete as well. Saying they can't bundle Windows Media 9 w/ their OS, for example, is ludicrous. With a Linux Distro that is free, you can bundle anything you want, and ultimately, Linux could do serious damage to Microsoft. But, I don't like what the courts are doing. A company, including MS, has the right to compete and leverage their own technology platform. If I were Gates, I'd pack up my company and move someplace with a friendlier business climate.

  218. Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I suppose "death by ooga booga" just wasn't going to happen.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=death+by+ooga+boo ga +joke&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

  219. Re:Oh, please... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

    Maybe if President Bush and his people would actually have provided sound reasoning instead of playing on the emotions of people, responses might have been different, and he wouldn't have looked like a liar. Its sad because there were enough good reasons to do something about Iraq, just not the ones provided by the Bush administration. A small problem also is that the issues that did apply in case of Iraq can be applied to other countries as well.

    The problem is that it seems people are reasoning that the goal justifies the means when the USA does something, but not when for example terrorists do something. Lets be very clear, it never does when you blatently disregard the side effects of the means because you have a decent chance on creating a bigger problem then you tried to solve.

  220. Re:Typical Europeans by vivian · · Score: 1

    But it is commonly "known" that Authur C. Clarke that came up with the geosync idea.
    (Less well known is that Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1903) proposed similar ideas with space elevator speculations
    so all your geosync are belong to Russia!)

  221. It's called Windows XP Service Pack 2. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    All we're going to see is that Windows XP Service Pack 2--due this summer--will not have Windows Media Player 9.x versions installed on the default install. Of course, that could be fixed by putting the installation CD-ROM disc in and typing in a few commands. :-)

    Mind you, for streaming audio/video I like Windows Media Player better than RealOne or the upcoming RealPlayer 10, mostly because it streams more smoothly that Real's products on dial-up connections.

  222. If MediaPlayer isn't worth $600,000,000, what is? by smchris · · Score: 1


    So what is the open source value of mplayer?

  223. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why is it that people believe any old lie no matter how silly.

    He did not have any sort of a program in it's infancy. He used to have lots of chemical weapons (we gave him the knowhow). He used them during the Reagan Admnistration (you may want to read up on that).

    After the first gulf war he was ordered to dismantle both his nuclear programs and his stockpiles of chemical weapons. He destroyed the nuclear program under the watch of the weapons inspectors. Both Hans Blix and Mohammed albredaei (sp?) have documented this phase. They also claim that they destroyed all the chemical weapons but not all of the destruction was documented. That's why a second round of inspections were ordered. During those inspections every single scientist interviewed stated that they destroyed the chemicals. They told the inspectors where the destruction took place. The inspectors found evidence of destruction but it was impossible to determine exactly how much was destroyed.

    Those are the facts. I know they don't fit everybodies ideology but they are facts nevertheless.

    It may be that not all the weapons were destroyed but it's highly unlikely that those chemicals are still viable. Even if they exist they are probably inert by now. If he had them we would have used them.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  224. Data General Nova III by can56 · · Score: 1

    I just had to comment on your sig ... the first computers I worked on (as a 3'rd year physics student in 1977) was a Data General minicomputer and a 8502-based SBC. Thanks for the memories!

  225. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 1

    Both people were worried about iraq. That's reasonable. Clinton kept the sanctions in place even though they were immoral and hurt ordinary people more then the iraqi govt. Clinton also kept the no fly zones intact and kept up the overflights. Of course he also cultivated friendly relations with Turkey, Israel and Lebanon to increase the likelyhood of gathering good intelligence.

    Here is the difference though. Clinton thought the we could get what we want without invading and occupying the country. He had no delusions of about delivering socialism to iraq which the current administration is desparately tying to do.

    Clinton was all for regime change but he insisted that it had to come from inside iraq. He wanted to support dissenting factions in any way he could but he ruled out invation. He felt that the iraqis had to figure it out for themselves and would not appreciate a govt shoved down their throats.

    I think he was right.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  226. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Also, please learn to spell.

    My deepest appologies for making a type-o while replying to you.

    And you act like 'right-wingers' are the only ones with repetitive arguments that bear little resemblence to reality.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  227. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok we'll take back your whole continent. Happy now ?

  228. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or intel and amd chips.

    OK, then we'll have the ARM chips back. You do know that the ARM instruction set is more widely spread than the x86 one (which is why intel license it), don't you?

  229. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah right. Once the EU gets the cash, it will go into their bank account and be used up in the normal stuff that they spend money on.

    haha yeah, French farmer and fisherman subsidies I bet!

  230. MPC is the best movie player I know by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    MPC isn't the old Windows version, it just looks like it.
    It supports DivX, Xvid and DVD VOBs natively, as well as being able to use any codec installed.

    Great piece of free software. Open source too.

    1. Re:MPC is the best movie player I know by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      When I used to run Windows, I exclusively used Media Player Classic, as it was free, open source, and supported every video format: quicktime, real, windows, divx, xvid, etc...

      Oh and it was efficient, fast, and had a nice simple graphical interface.

      I tell every Windows user that I know that they are a fool if they are running any other media player. Media Player Classic does it all and does it well.

  231. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Aardpig · · Score: 1

    My deepest appologies for making a type-o while replying to you.

    Erm, that would be 'typo', short for typographical error. You dipshit.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  232. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by elsilver · · Score: 1
    True enough but this is a traffic ticket to Bill Gates. Not a traffic ticket to you and me.

    No actually it's pretty close to a traffic ticket for us mortals. If I compare a very stiff traffic ticket around here as a fraction of my annual income, is about the same as a US$600M fine on their US$32,000M annual income (2%).

    Now I admit, I'm not going to declare bankruptcy over a single speeding ticket, but it is going to make me slow down, and I'll be a bit more careful next time. (I'll especially be careful around the damn corner they got me on/trying to bundle in the EU.)

    E.

  233. Re:Inapproriate? Hardly. by k_head · · Score: 1

    The lawyer isn't stupid, just a liar. Just like the top execs at MS.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  234. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. I was unaware that Clinton, Gore, Albright, etc. were members of the current administration.

  235. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton's words, and all words from his administration, can be summed up as: Forget about that Monica chick, these guys.. umm.. ahhh.. Yeah.. Wait.. Have big bad weapons.. they're bad.. they're bad. And since enough people seem to prefer war to sex, amazingly, people bit. Oh, and Kerry was basically saying "75% of Americans support this action.. well then So Do I! Blah blah blah blah".

  236. Only somewhat by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate to break it to you, but the only reason mplayer is a viable alternative to things like Media Player, Real One and Quicktime is because it uses the Win32 DLLs in a very dubious (license-wise) manner. The Win32 DLLs written by the "crappy capitalistic companies" like Microsoft, Real and Apple (all of which have released open source software, by the way).

    No, it isn't all using win32 dlls. IIRC, here's the breakdown:

    * AVI and ASF (the wrapper formats) have been reverse-engineered and reimplemented natively.

    * RTSP has been implemented natively.

    * RealMedia's codecs are implemented by using a Linux-native shared library that Real exposes *specifically* to allow third-party software to do decoding. Seeking in RealMedia content is not supported.

    * divx (not technically from MS, though the original codebase originated from MS code) is implemented natively.

    * Quicktime (the wrapper format) is implemented natively for older versions, but newer versions require use of Win32 DLLs.

    * Sorenson v1 and v2 are reverse-engineered and implemented natively.

    * Sorenson v3, I believe, requires use of a Win32 DLL.

    * Indeo requires use of Win32 dlls.

    The Win32 DLLs written by the "crappy capitalistic companies" like Microsoft, Real and Apple (all of which have released open source software, by the way).

    The problem has nothing to do with the company releasing open source software. The problem is that, while it's difficult-but-doable to make your own video codec, it's extremely hard to produce an exactly compatible player without format information. This has nothing to do with Apple, Real, or Microsoft having better designers -- it has to do with none of them having to reimplement someone *else*'s codec without technical information.

    1. Re:Only somewhat by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      The problem has nothing to do with the company releasing open source software. The problem is that, while it's difficult-but-doable to make your own video codec, it's extremely hard to produce an exactly compatible player without format information. This has nothing to do with Apple, Real, or Microsoft having better designers -- it has to do with none of them having to reimplement someone *else*'s codec without technical information ... of course, none of that takes into account the fact that they're redistributing those DLLs illegally, in violation of the licenses for that software.

      But hey, I guess if it's MPlayer that's getting ripped off, people jump up and down - but if they're ripping off others, it's a-ok.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:Only somewhat by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      (a) Have you actually read the license, or are you just assuming that there are legal violations in all three cases? RealPlayer has been structured such that the library is not part of the binary -- exactly so that third-party use like this could take place. It is possible that the distribution separate from the player app is illegal (not sure, as I said, I haven't read the license), but it can certainly be expected that the use is not out of whack.

      (b) None of these companies have gone after MPlayer, despite the fact that the mplayer people have zipped copies of the DLLs from the installers on their websites. It would *not* be hard for them to do so -- companies send C&Ds all the time. One can conclude that it might *not* be in their interest to do so. REing for interprogram compatibility *is* legally protected and an exemption in the DMCA. If any of these companies force the point, they will simply suppress these codecs for six months or so, and then have have RE'd legal open source and free implementations of their codecs floating around, which will mean that they will lose the ability to force people to pay licensing fees (the other alternative is a mass of techies pushing for the non-use of a format, which is not something to sneeze at). Do not shed tears for MS/Apple/Real -- they're doing what's in their best interest.

      (c) Yes, people don't get angry at MPlayer. MPlayer is the *only* way to play Quicktime or Windows Media formats on Linux, since Apple and Microsoft refuse to support Linux, and a much nicer application than Real. Why should anyone be upset about MPlayer? It only benefits them.

      Personally, I think that copyright protection for a piece of software should not be granted unless the protocols and formats used by that software are made publically available (source, in the case of Open Source software, would be an acceptable form of documentation). Almost all of the grief that consumers suffer from commercial software comes from an inability of competitors to enter the market because of compatibility issues. It's not that software costing money is a problem -- hell, people spent time and money creating the software, and if they want recompense, fair enough. The thing that makes people angry is that the thing driving sales absolutely should not be artificial monopolies created by secret formats.

  237. Re:Oh, please... by danheskett · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For that, we killed how many thousands of civilians with bombing?

    Take consolation that Saadam routinely executed, maimed, murdered, expelled, starved, and generally killed more people each year of his regime. PBS Frontline estimated that number of Saadam victims to be between 75,000 and 125,000.

    At very least, that won't be happening anymore.

  238. Re:Oh, please... by danheskett · · Score: 1

    I think he was right.
    I think he was wrong. I also think Bush was and is wrong, but, more than anything Clinton was dead wrong.

    These totalarian regimes like Sadaam are essentially never going to fail on thier own. Ever. It just doesn't happen. North Korea, China, Saudia Arabia - when you control the guns you control the country, period. End of story. These rulers have the limited money, the guns, the communications, and therefore, the only time these governments are going to fall is when (a) acted upon by an outside force or (b) acted upon by nature (ie, a natural death).

    Objects in motion tend to remain in motion. Look at Cuba. Clinton's Iraq policy is a mirror of the US Cuba policy. How well has that policy worked? If you are a "peace at any cost" type, it's worked great! Otherwise, not so good.

  239. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do you mean "worked"?. Clinton's Iraq policy did indeed work in that it accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. The goal being keeping Saddam under control and a non threat to the US and it's interests. Saddam was declawed enough to make him a non threating to the US, it's allies and it's interests. Clinton accomplished this with minimal amount of expenditure of lives and money. His plan worked perfectly and accomplished exactly what he wanted to do. As I said he had no desire to cram socialism down their throats. He felt that saddam was the problem of the Iraqis and it was up to them to do something about it. He really didn't care all that much about your average Iraqi, he was only concerned with US interests.

    Bush had different policy goals. He wanted to invade and occupy iraq and was not content to merely contain saddam. His motivations were complex (oil, his father, biblical prophecy, US hegemony etc) but he knew from day one that he wanted to control iraq totally and absolutely. He too accomplished what he wanted even though it cost lots of money and lots of lives.

    In the end both Clinton and Bush were looking out for their own interests. The interests of the Iraqis was and remains totally irrelevent.

    If Bush had stood up before 9/11 and said "The US will use it's wealth, power and military might to end opression in the world and to destroy all dictators" I would be lining up to give him money and support. If he had said "we will deliver democracy to everybody and free everybody from the chains of opression and bondage no matter what it costs in lives and money" I would walk around my town begging people to vote for him.

    He didn't say that because that's never been his goal. He will not lift a finger to deliver freedom to chechnians, palestenians, africans, tibetians, chinese, and the tens of millions of people suffering all over the world because they don't have something he wants.

    I am still waiting for somebody (anybody) to explain to me why the Iraqi people deserved socialism more then any other people on the planet. Why they had to be delivered from evil first. It seems to me that your average north korean is and has been much more opressed. The average chechnians is much poorer, the average east timorese has suffered much more death and bloodshed, the average tibetians much more misery and ethnic cleansing. Too bad none of them have oil, too bad the bible makes no mention of them, too bad none of their leaders tried to kill his father.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  240. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Erm, that would be 'typo', short for typographical error. You dipshit.

    I bow to your infinitely superior grammar and spelling. I'm but a mere American and can't quite live up to your standards. A thousand pardons oh great one.

    Excuse me if I don't fetch the dictionary and spell check every post to Slashdot. As important as it may be, I don't exactly put it on the top of my list of 'things to do'.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  241. Re:Oh, please... by mattcasters · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just because someone else kills people it's OK for you to do so?

    I don't think so, 2 wrongs don't make it right.

    OK, and were do these numbers come from anyway?

    --
    News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
  242. Re:Oh, please... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
    For the high and mighty of the bunch, Clintons 'sanctions' on Iraq led to the starvation of half a million people. How is this benevolent again?

    Give me some good reason, not some bullshit. Our sanctions did more to ruin Iraq as a country than Saddam did. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  243. Re:Oh, please... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

    Please sub the word USA for clinton. I dont know how i slipped that in there.

  244. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by skifreak87 · · Score: 1

    While the traffic ticket argument may have merits, doesn't earning more income entitle people to some benefits that others don't have? By this sentiment, one could say well food should represent x% of your budget, so if you make more money food should be the same burden and cost more which is clearly ridiculous sounding. And should a traffic ticket actually be a life-changing event by shattering a significant portion of your income?

    And sadly, fines don't make something unprofitable. As anyone who's seen fight club 8000 times knows, if the cost of repairing a product defect is more than the expected settlements for letting the damage happen and people die, they don't do it. I fully agree that some fines (in this case punitive damage in clearly negligent lawsuits) should be massive. But should this be the case always? Such as fines for anti-competitive behavior which is not life-threatening. And I personally think 1% is a siginificant enough chunk to have an impact on a company. Microsoft should not be punished worse than any other company just because it's a good business and has tons of cash (good as in profitable, not good as in the opposite of evil).

  245. Just because you asked... by Biotech9 · · Score: 1

    Wow you really don't know??, why not suggest M$ give up the US market while you're at it, man do you have any idea just how big (people/ecconomy wise) the EU is?? hmm I guess you don't.

    around 500 million people after june when we get a few more member states.
    Thats (lets be conservative here), maybe 50 millions copies of a MS operating system.

    Thats a lot of money. And thats excluding MS's REAL market, large corporations like Airbus or Mercedes.

  246. Only an American could, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the 21st century think that having an empire could be something to derive any pride from.

  247. Re:Back to the issue at hand, MS has the right to. by kb8rln · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have to disagree with you because MS has all most all of the desktop market. How about what MS has done too:

    DR-DOS - Would not run under 95 because of a TSR that look for DR-DOS

    Stacker - Added to DOS 6.0 to kill them

    Netscape - IE for FREE with OS

    OS/2 - OS2 and Win 3.1 was going to come out at the same time. MS did not wait.

    Lotus 123 - The OS is not done until Lotus does not run.

    Word Perfect - Lets give Word with the OS to lock people in.

    Java - Lets change the stander so MS JAVA would not run on any other platform.

    Is Real Audio or Google next?

    If there was five large companies making an OS systems, I would now have a problem with them adding new stuff. But when one company has 90% of the market and killing anyone else that might have a good idea. I have a real problem with them.

    If you look at the pricing of MS it is starting to come down because of Linux. I have seen MS paid to fix problems with their systems because the company was going to switch to Linux for that service. There servers are going over slower to Linux now. It would have been faster if MS was not helping.

    I think the writing is on the wall we just need to wait.

  248. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speeding ticket of over 100,000 euros was given for a boss of Nokia, Anssi Vanjoki. Another Nokia boss got a ticket for 30,000 euros..

  249. By your logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the Russians "lost" against the Germans in WW2. Which is curious, because I seem to recall pictures Russian troops raising their flag in the centre of a burned-out Berlin.

    Anyway, glad to see you think that 65k deaths were worth it just because you killed more of the damn foreigners.

  250. Re:Oh, please... by Veridium · · Score: 1

    "Maybe if President Bush and his people would actually have provided sound reasoning instead of playing on the emotions of people"

    This is the fundamental problem I have with the Bush supporters. Their reasons go:
    Do you want to be blown up?
    Do you want to die in a terrorist attack?
    These guys are trying to kill you!!!

    And what makes it all worse, just by criticizing these things, you get labled:
    A terrorist sympathizer
    A communist
    A liberal democrat
    A kerry supporter

    Let's just face it, the age of reason is gone.
    Welcome to the new cult order. Please check your free thought at the door, otherwise you're a gay communist liberal democrat kerry supporting terrorist sympathizer. It doesn't matter that none of these things logically are supported by the above criticism, you just are cuz we say so.

    --
    Think for yourself, destroy your television.
  251. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    OK. But remember to send Philosophy, The Arts, Science, Democracy, Mathematics, The English Language, Systems of governance, Law, all Sports that don't suck big time and, please, please, please, a nice supply of Gibson brand guitars.

    I'd ask for Honour and Decency, but it seems the way things are going in Guantanamo Bay you seem to have already sent them on ahead.

  252. Americanized English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    defend thier freedom. I love how that means "They broke the law and should be fined".

    A bit like "Liberating" means "Invading"

    or

    "Supporting democracy" means "Overthrowing the elected president of the country"

    or my favorite

    "The American dream" is "A police state where its own citizens are treated as criminals who happly get to watch all thier jobs leave thier country, thier money become more worthless and a chimp piss away whats left on totally screwing up the world so his rich friends get thier money".

  253. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical Americans. Get your own irrational xenophobias instead of copying the motherland. Us Britons called bagsy on hating the French. Find someone else to call names will you. Grief.

  254. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And do the whole world a favor, and just switch to Linux already.

    After you hand over the kernel with Linus :)

  255. 100M was the estimate? by Xenomorpheus · · Score: 1

    100M was the estimate and they almost got fined 500M?

    wow the dollar sure has dropped...

    Thanks there "W".

    (Yes there is a closing tag there without and opening tag for sarcasm because I don't know when it ever starts, it just ends like that)

  256. Shhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he doesn't realised who should of typed CAR into google instead.

  257. Re:Oh, please... by danheskett · · Score: 1

    OK, and were do these numbers come from anyway?
    PBS Frontline aired a "1 year later" special about Iraq. I tried to find a transcript, but it's not online yet (it was on TV just last week).

    Just because someone else kills people it's OK for you to do so?
    Nope. Didn't say that. I said, if you have a problem with the Iraq war, you can at least take solace in the fact one of the worst butchers of recent history is now out of comission. Even if you hate the war, Bush, etc etc you can take some solace in knowing that 50 million people have been liberated from vicious tryanny.

    It's called a silver lining.

  258. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the average east timorese has suffered much more death and bloodshed, massacres in indonesia and east-timor was made possible by us and uk support for general suharto. when >500k people was murdered in indonesia for being "communists" or "communist sympathisers", uk and us intelligence said that it was "good for their interests".during the massacre in east-timor at late 70's us and other western newspapers didn't wrote anything about it, because it was not in interests of political and economical leaders. whole conflict in indonesia started when elected president sukarno stated that local forests and resources belonged to local people, rather than big western companies. however, sukarno tried to be independent between the soviet union and usa, but cia tried to assasinate him. after that he gave more sympathy to communists (they didn't want him to die). uk and us wanted sukarno out of power, and when suharto took power, western governments were happy. no one knows how many people died in "cleanings" of suharto. estimations vary from 500k to 3 millions. but our peace loving western "democracies" thought it was a good thing because now we were able to do business as we wanted. newspapers didn't write about it, because it's not good for people to know what their "leaders" are doing. long live the freedom and democracy - yeah, right. i think it's stupid to compare that which one is better - europe or usa. both are same shit in slightly different package, and both should be replaced by a system that at least have some sense. and i am not a state communist. i think soviet union was one of the biggest mistakes being made. it was pure dictatorship, only difference between nazis and state communists were that state communists claimed to be on "workers side". what a joke.

  259. Re:Oh, please... by danheskett · · Score: 1

    Our sanctions did more to ruin Iraq as a country than Saddam did
    That's BS. Saddam spent money that would have easily covered the cost of feeding those millions on opulent palaces. He built them constantly throughout the sanction period.

    It's absurd to claim what you claim. The post-war sanctions were silly and cruel, but you know what, that's what you get when you invade a peaceful neighboring country in the face of world pressure. Seriously.

  260. So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that MS should not put WMP in the OS?

    Cool.

  261. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 1

    Ya. Only if they some oil or something then we would have gone in and helped them.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  262. Re:Oh, please... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
    One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.


    Every single modern country on this planet has the means to develop WMD's. Chemical weapons? Not a problem. Biological weapons? Also, not a problem. Nukes? That would take some time, but it's also doable. Is USA going to invade every one of those (excluding Israel of course) countries?
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  263. No, what worries me is this: by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    That a man like John Kerry would get elected to the highest office in the land because of a campaign of hate against Bush.

    I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about hate. The folks on the Left don't just have pholsphical differences with Bush, they HATE him! That really concerns me even more than the fact that so far no Dem has been able to really show me that Kerry the better CANDIDATE when compared to someone like Ralph Nader.

    You've all got to have a better reason then 'ABB' or 'I hate Bush'.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:No, what worries me is this: by escallywag · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter because the only choice Usians that still bother to vote have is right wing or extreme right wing. US government will remain fascist regardless of who's in the White House. Yes, fascist, look it up if you don't believe me. Nazi Germany was fascism in the guise of socialism, the USSR was fascism disguised as communism and now the US has fascism under the illusion of democracy.

    2. Re:No, what worries me is this: by mpe · · Score: 1

      That a man like John Kerry would get elected to the highest office in the land because of a campaign of hate against Bush.
      I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about hate. The folks on the Left don't just have pholsphical differences with Bush, they HATE him.


      Whilst they may hate the man, do they like or dislike his policies. In terms of these how big a difference is there between Bush and Kerry?

  264. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Hyperlinks are patented by BT!?!?

  265. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up John Logie Baird.

  266. Maybe but... QUESTION: Anti-US action? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    I know most of us on Slashdot are anti-MS, but think about this for a moment. Given the current political climate, isn't it at least possible that the EU has decided to prosecute MS to this extent out of anger at US policy?

    Look, we all know MS has been guilty in the past, and to some extent surely still is (can you say... SCO?) of preventing competition, however if there's a chance that this action is motivated by anti-US sentiment, THAT should be considered as well.

    It might be MS today, but who will it be tomorrow? I realize that France and Germany are angry that their exclusive banking 'oil for food' deals in Iraq are over, but will they now take it out on other US-based organizations out of spite? Can we expect action from the US gov't on this issue?

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  267. 497 million euros by Qrlx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    497 million euros. that sure will buy a lot of niggers.

  268. so what? by mausmaki · · Score: 0

    beeing fined doesen't mean paying... this process will go on for years before they pay one single euro.

  269. Re:Oh, please... by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful
    These totalarian regimes like Sadaam are essentially never going to fail on thier own.
    Thats right. It certainly could never happen in the totalitarian Romania, East Germany or Czechoslovakia. I realise there's a stereotype that Americans are totally ignorant of World History, but this was only fifteen years ago, you know. How old are you?
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  270. And your point is? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Hate is a legitimate feeling.

    Thankfully we have politics to channel those emotions.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:And your point is? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Yes, it worked well for Hitler too. Somehow I don't find that very reassuring.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  271. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you believe its actaully tobacco farmers that get most of the subsubsidies!

  272. In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sauron, President & CEO of Mordor, was accused of running a sinister vitamin cartel in Middle Earth.

    District Attorney Gandalf implied the defendant is facing severe fees in the multi-class action suit by humans, elves, dwarves, ents, and hobbits, facing extinction due to the lack of competitively priced vitamins in their foodstuff. "As the ringleader, Sauron may be fined as much as hundreds of millions of gold pieces," warned Gandalf. Sauron was unavailable for comment.

    (Sorry... Couldn't help the association.)

  273. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by meadowsp · · Score: 1

    Well you obviously got the good all American education that you paid for.

    Here's a hint, most people don't need to spell check every single word, they generally have some vocabulary of their own.

  274. Could Mr, by treczoks · · Score: 1

    Well, such modern systems exist, and they exist in good old Europe!

    in February, a millionaire in Finland named Jussi Salonoja was fined EUR170,000 (About USD 220,000) for speeding, thus beating the previous record of EUR80,000 from 2000.

    A BBC article

  275. No doubt... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    ...that was a crime.

    It's also wrong to bomb civilians just to keep your military body bag count down.

  276. Re:Oh, please... by Glorat · · Score: 1

    Iraq may have been denied the capacity to create WMD but, and I thought this was common knowledge, everyone knows that Iraq has had supplies of WMD because western countries sold it to them in the first place in decades gone by. Remember Saddam Hussain was seen as an friend just over a decade ago when countries supported Saddam during the Iraq/Iran conflict

  277. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're concerned about U.S sactions you might want to take a look at what they're doing to your neighbour, Cuba.

  278. Re:Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, because that must explain the fall of regime in DR Congo last year, the ousting of Slobadon two years ago, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Berlin Wall.

    Yeah, peaceful regime change from inside never happens.

  279. Re:Oh, please... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

    No, he is equating Iraqi WMD programs to infestations of stinging insects.

  280. learn to use units properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E500M is totally wrong syntax! Units are written _after_ the amount, and that is almost universal except for the fucked up US syntax. It is 500ME, or 500M euros.

    1. Re:learn to use units properly by sh4na · · Score: 1

      Well, that depends if the E stands for the symbol or not. The notation in euros is (euro symbol)500M, stupidly like the dollar. Only if you don't use the (euro symbol) does the notation become 500M euros. Of course, E can be a substitute for (euro symbol), and so the notation in the story is probably correct...

      just another meaningless conversation
      --- oh, I miss my escudos... 500$00 ...:) --

      --
      shana
      ......gone crazy, back soon, leave message
    2. Re:learn to use units properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The notation in euros is (euro symbol)500M, stupidly like the dollar.

      Actually it is not. Nations can choose the policy for presentation:

      http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/euro.html

      quote:
      Each country has currently their own preferred convention to display amounts in their national currency. This national individualism is expected to extend to the display of amounts in euro.

      Hence we can have great wars on this ;)

  281. yeah by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like with iraq; that worked out real great, didn't it? /end sarcasm(?)/

    It's always so cool to see how the USA condemns countries with WMD, after they delivered the means to these countries to develop them in the first place.

    Or how they invade and sanction countries that have WMD - while having WMD themselves, ofcourse, exept Isreal, Pakistan and India. But only when it suits them, ofcourse, because let's not forget they DID imose sanctions on the latter two, untill they did the bidding of Bush and his cronies.

    Or the USA much uplifting struggle for freedom and democracy in the world, while supporting ruthless dictators and human-rights-abusing monarchies...as long as it is to the economic and political benefit of the USA, of course.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  282. indeed, but by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    shouldn't we take a bit less then solace that the same USA delivered those very WMD that all those 'worst butchers' used and were actively supported by the USA? They were fully aware what he was doing with the civilian population since the 80'ies: they just didn't give a damn, because he was their 'friend' at the time, and fighting big bad foe Iran. How much solace can there be, knowing that those butchers were actively supported, and in some cases helped to power, thanks to the USA?

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  283. Dashboard Cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like in Russia?

  284. ermm? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    Useless sanctions that starve 500000 civilians is what you get?
    Hold that thought.

    And we claim we are the 'civilized world'?

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    1. Re:ermm? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      What other option does the world have? Allow Saddam to exploit his natural wealth and again bully and repress and destroy foreign nations? Or restrict the flow of blood money and in the process hurt civilians?

      Saddam was a madman of the highest order. It now sounds like he was actually high when he invaded Kuwait.

      As far as I am concerned, the blood of those people are on the hands of Saddam and no one else. He refused to feed his own people, and instead, stole money from the Oil for Food program (remember that? run properly it would easily feed the entire nation).

  285. I see by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    "If cheap == "always victorious" then yes I guess our soldiers are cheap."

    I see. So Vietnam was a victory, then?

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  286. Re:just curious heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you do anal? wow

  287. Re:Oh, please... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

    Hehehe, sadly enough thats exactly what I meant.

  288. Re:Oh, please... by aixou · · Score: 1

    The fact that Iraq is sitting on a lot of oil allows the liberation of their country to be less costly for us (by getting discounted rates). You seem to be saying that yes, Iraq will (and is) benefiting from our occupation, but that none of it was justified simply because there are countries worse off than Iraq.

    By this logic, nothing would ever get done in the world. Am I completely unjustified in giving my neighbor a cupful of sugar simply because there are starving kids in Africa that could use it more?

    Iraq has the potential be a great democracy and trendsetter for the region. It is a simple fact that the middle east is the most backwards, dangerous, (oftentimes) irrational part of the world right now.

    The Left love to reap the love and joy that comes from hard work and war, but condemn the means. There were a lot of faults in the Bush's prewar Iraq plan, but at the end of the day, when all the smoke clears (literally), I have little doubt that it might just prove an essential part of world peace (eventually, in won't happen tomorrow or within the decade).

    The US has done a lot of shitty things around the world, but oftentimes the ends justifiy the means. (not always though.. I know there a lot of people that despise the US for fully justified reasons)

    The simple fact that the Iraq war is under such high scrutiny from the rest of the world is a good thing in itself. It will force us to be extra careful, determined, and devoted to it.

  289. not E by Sindri · · Score: 1

    Since when is it acceptable to write E in stead of ?

  290. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by horza · · Score: 1

    True enough but this is a traffic ticket to Bill Gates. Not a traffic ticket to you and me. It always struck me as fundamentally unfair that traffic tickets are fixed and not based on income. Simply put 100 dollars is not the same to everyone. 500 million is petty cash to MS.

    In Finland the fines are proportional to what you earn. A top exec of Nokia was caught speeding and was fined 116,000 euros for driving his motorbike at 75kph (46mph) in a 50kph (31mph) area.

    Phillip.

  291. Laughinh by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Ha Ha

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  292. the problem by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    The problem I have with this line of reasoning is, that these 'madmen' and ruthless dicators were often actively supported, and sometimes even helped in power by the same USA that is full of 'bringing democratic values the world' and other lame excuses to conceil their own ongoing immorality in their dealings with the world.

    The blood of those people is not entirely on the hands of Sadam, but also on that of the USA.

    For sure, the USA is not the only country that has commited these kinds of things, though they are on the top row, certainly considering the hypocrisy displayed. Germany has had it's share, as does the Netherlands and a lot of other european countries. But the difference is, we *learn* about these atrocities and wrongdoings at home/shool, and we learn that they were immoral and should not be repeated.

    In contrast, however, most americans react totally the opposite when confronted with the shamefull actions of their country: they not only deny it vehemently, they try to minimize the immorality and the consequences, and even try to defend it. Just as you are doing.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  293. Re:Laughing by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    shiat. I tried to put Nelson tags around this but it didn't work.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  294. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by pwagland · · Score: 1

    Yes, but imagine if BillyG lived in Finland....

  295. Re:E500M? We got that covered. by FroMan · · Score: 1

    I thought the Euro's loved their taxes? What are they doing trying to skirt the law here?

    Oh, like all socialists they like to take other people's money (not their own) and give it to causes that they deem more important than the true owner of the money.

    Nothing to see here, standard socialism.

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  296. Who's this? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    Here's here

    That's right, it's US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a "madman of the highest order".

    You might also want to have a look at: this. My favourite part is the bit about "Bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use". One guess what CW stands for.

    Reagan and Rumsfeld both knew what Saddam Hussein was up to in 1984, and did nothing. In fact, they offered plenty of financial and intelligence support to him.

  297. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Well you obviosly got the 'holier than thou' attitude taught in socialist European schools.

    Here's a hint, most people don't need to spell check every single word, they generally have some vocabulary of their own.

    Here's another hint. Typo's are accidents. Usually due to typing too quickly. Most people accept that Slashdot is *not* an important thing to post to, and thus don't double-check such things. These people assume that others are intelligent enough to understand the post, and polite enough to overlook casual errors.

    But at this point IHBT, and will stop replying. Thanks for getting the blood moving in the morning.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  298. K head, I'll 'splain it. by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1
    I am still waiting for somebody (anybody) to explain to me why the Iraqi people deserved socialism more then any other people on the planet. Why they had to be delivered from evil first.

    Because they have oil. No, not like that, it's because they have oil that makes them a LOT of money. Quickly. Making them able to afford the high cost of weapons programs and black market merchandise. Unlike the North Koreans who have no money, or the Chechnyans, etc.

    Saddam was actively pursuing a nuclear warhead (several were found, btw), that it is widely believed in intelligence circles he intended to use on Israel. Saddam never threatened the U.S. directly, but he was pretty good at antagonizing our allies in the Mid-East. Which is why this little incursion had the potential to blow up in our face (AKA war with the ENTIRE Middle East from Egypt to India). Special attention here - Bush did a pretty good job if for no other reason that it didn't blow up in our face. You can hate his agenda, his methods, whatever else, but he handled this situation ... brilliantly. Look, I hate to admit it too, but he did. For as bad an idea as I think this was, he HANDLED it extremely well.

    Bush may be an ass-hat, but the only one questioning whether or not what happened in Iraq is a good thing in the long run are people like you who hate him. Get past your petty personal politics and do a little more homework before you ask easy questions. And if you want to deliver democracy to everybody and free everybody [blah blah blah], go join the Army. I can just about promise that you'll have every chance in the next 10 years to risk your life for very little money freeing somebody. Not sure who yet, but then if we deployed every man, woman and child in America we wouldn't be able to save 1/4th the world. And we'd probably all die long before we won freedom for anybody... even say, Canada [again, they beat the crap out of us all 5 times we tried to invade]. But you'll get your chance, guaranteed.

    Btw, Clinton doesn't have the glowing intelligence record you seem to think he has, we lost quite a few lives during his run (Remember Mogadishu? The Embassy bombings (ours and the Chinese)? Kansas?), so you probably want to tone that down too.

    In short K Head, we ran over Iraq with a tank because the guy running the place wanted to take his kill-em-all attitude global - and he had the money to do it. If we could've taken his money (and we tried) that would've been good enough, but it wasn't working.

    1. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by k_head · · Score: 1

      "Saddam was actively pursuing a nuclear warhead (several were found, btw), "

      This is lie. Just because people keep repeating it does not make it true. HE did not have any program. He wasn't even close.

      "that it is widely believed in intelligence circles he intended to use on Israel. "

      I don't care. We give israel six to 12 billion a year in foreign aid and it can certainly use that to pretect itself. I don't want to spend another 100 billion on top of that to clear some vague and long range threat to Israel. They could have invaded and occupied iraq just like they occupy the palestenians. They have lots of practice opressing arabs and they seem to enjoy it quite a bit. According to most intelligence reports Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons. They are the second most powerful military in the world. They already take enough of my money to defend themselves and I resent spending another 100 billion just to make them a little safer.

      "You can hate his agenda, his methods, whatever else, but he handled this situation ... brilliantly. Look, I hate to admit it too, but he did. For as bad an idea as I think this was, he HANDLED it extremely well"

      He did o such thing. He totally underestimated the resistance, he had no plans for after the invasion, he still has no exit strategy. He is floundering like a hapless child when it comes to the middle east. Where is the roadmap?

      "And if you want to deliver democracy to everybody and free everybody [blah blah blah], go join the Army."

      First of all I am a veteran. I did my stint which is more then you can say for half his sissy hawk cabinet. Secondly Bush has no iterest in delivering democracy to anybody. He is going the deliver socialism to iraq not democracy. They will have national health care and public funded education just like most socialist countries in europe.

      Of course that's all moot. He just wants the oil, and to speed up the return of Jesus Christ. Anything else is a side effect.

      "Btw, Clinton doesn't have the glowing intelligence record you seem to think he has, we lost quite a few lives during his run (Remember Mogadishu? The Embassy bombings (ours and the Chinese)? Kansas?), so you probably want to tone that down too."

      Yes. A few people killed in a few dangerous missions is exactly like invading and occupying a country, spending 100 billion a year and getting over 500 soldiers killed and over a thousand maimed. Exactly the same. Yup. No difference what so ever. What is it with you people. 1 != 100 even though they are both numbers.

      "In short K Head, we ran over Iraq with a tank because the guy running the place wanted to take his kill-em-all attitude global - and he had the money to do it. If we could've taken his money (and we tried) that would've been good enough, but it wasn't working."

      Wrong. He was disarmed. He was inept. He had no weapons. He had no programs. He was being watched like a hawk. We flew over his country anytime we wanted and bombed him almost monthly. He was so weak he could not even attack the kurds or the shiiites that he hated so much. He was a harmless fly who owned oil. We now own that oil. We beat up the little kid and took away his lunch money. Now we are all walking around with a hard on thinking we are all hot shit.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    2. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

      Just because people keep repeating it does not make it true. HE did not have any program. He wasn't even close

      I didn't say he had a nuclear program, I said he was actively trying to get a warhead. [I can't prove that nuclear warheads were found, so I'll concede on that point... for now]. http://www.usainreview.com/4_2_Nuclear_Iraq.htm = Interesting article discussing how we thought Iraq was pursuing a nuclear capability, and where he might get it.
      http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_syria_04_02.html = and hey, look at that, Iraq was getting money from Syria for oil despite our embargo's and inspections. Go figure. Defanged and Defenseless? No, we had him cornered and he had money. It just made him more dangerous. All he had to do to get out from under our thumb was spark a war with one of our allies (or try to make it look like Israel dropped the bomb). He had nothing left to lose.

      We give Israel six to 12 billion a year in foreign aid and it can certainly use that to pretect itself First, it's more than that. Have you ever bothered to figure out why? Why we give them money, why they're such pricks to their neighbors, etc.? Your resentment of the aid we give them doesn't solve the problem - it doesn't even move us into an area where we can debate or discuss the situation. When you figure out why we give a **** about Israel we can talk.

      Floundering in Iraq - you avoided the point, and not very well I might add. Bush INVADED, probably illegally (globally speaking), the holiest land in the Middle East. Flooded it with infidels. The Great Satan walks free in Eden (floundering or not), and the rest of the Arab world turns their eyes and waits impatiently for us to leave. Roadmap be damned, Bush did something in the middle east WITHOUT the help of the rest of the world that his father couldn't do WITH the support of the world. That's Fsking brilliant. That he didn't spark a war with the ENTIRE Middle East with this little incursion is nothing short of amazing. Like I said, be as pissed as you want about how screwed up the whole situation is and how badly it's going now, but he did it - he captured Saddam, killed most of his regime, invaded a Muslim country in the heart of Muslim countries, and no matter what happens next,Iraq is better off without him [it's confirmed that he killed at least 61,000 of his own people, and estimated that 1 in 5 were tortured in his prisons].

      A few people killed in a few dangerous missions? You must be high. If you were a veteran you've either had you head buried in the sand since the day you got out 20 years ago, or you joined the National Guard for a month during college (probably while high, as a protest) and were never deployed. And I might add that if you are a veteran, you should probably reconsider the 1 !=100 number. If you're number is 1, 1 is everything. 100 billion a year be damned.

      The rest of your arguments make it pretty clear that you're a half witted disciple of Common Dreams. This isn't to disparage Common Dreams, a lot of their content is pretty good, but some of their soap boxing confidently ignores 'why' and tends to focus on the suspected 'motivation' or 'agenda's' of Bush and his cabinet. Those arguments are pointless, you can suspect anybody of anything but until you learn to focus on the facts that define the decision you're conclusions will be nothing more suspicion based on bias. Oil, Jesus, Neo-Con conspiracies... If Bush uses sun screen you cry about how he's obviously in the pocket of the oil and pharmaceutical industries. Try being just a little objective, you'd be surprised at how much you can learn.

    3. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by k_head · · Score: 1

      I forgot that I was talking to a republican. Ok let's see if we can any of this into your little republican brain.

      So you provide a link to the fact that saddam was selling oil to syria (SHOCKING!) and an abscure publication in which one inspector disagrees with the inspection team as proof that Saddam was actively searching for nuclear weapons. I guess to a republican this constitutes absolute 100% proof.

      I guess armed with that kind of proof you can't go wrong invading a country and killing 10 or 20 thousand people.

      Which naturally leads to your delusions about israel. Saddam did not attack israel. He did not say he was going to attack them. He did not have missiles capable of reaching israel. He did not amass an army at the israeli border. And yet to a republican like you this presented a clear and present danger to israel so great and ominous that it was worth spending a 100 billion of our tax dollars to alleviate. Israel is so helpless and weak despite the billions we give them and the hundreds of nuclear weapons they have that we needed a massive military operation to save precious israeli lives. Even if cost us the lives of American soldiers.

      Silly me I thought the mission of the US military was to defend the US not Israel.

      I really don't know what to make of your christian fundamentalist rant in the third paragraph. Being an atheist I always find it amusing when people lead their whole lives according to some silly 2000 year old writings and claim to speak to god. I do understand however how much christains hate muslims and how powerful the book of revelations is to you superstitious fucks. Apparently Iraq is to be a central palyer in bringing christ back and I realize that speeding the return of christ is a major reason why Bush invaded iraq.

      Capturing saddam OTOH is nothing to crow about. As I said he was a declawed kittycat. I am shocked that it took almost a year.

      Let's hope that when Jesus comes back and sees how many people GW killed to make him happy he won't be pissed.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    4. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

      Republican? Where the hell did that come from? I haven't been a republican since high school. Funny (ha ha funny), but you're not even in the neighborhood of my political bias. And Christian fundamentalist rant? Yeeeah K head, I speaking about the Muslim Holy Land, not the Christian one [I don't even know where that would be]. So did you mean my Islamic fundamentalist rant? I haven't been a practicing Christian in some 12 years (and I wasn't that good at it anyway).
      Tell you what, let's skip the personal attacks for a minute (seems that you party affiliated people always fall back on personal attacks instead of dealing with the issues - why is that, do you think?).

      That whole paragraph is about the FACT that the entire Islamic world stood by while the United States, believed internationally to be a Christian Nation, and the enemy of all Muslims and the Middle East (including Israel), ATTACKED what Muslims believe to be the most promised Islamic land. Not one of those Muslim nations lifted a finger to stop us. The only parallel I can think of is this; Imagine that the Soviet Union, Cuba and France attacked and occupied Washington DC, Pennsylvania and New York City one year after September 11th in order to 'restore freedom to the people', while the rest of the United States (including Texas) stood by and watched because we think that Politicians suck. They'd have the same problems we're having now (guerilla attacks, quagmire, etc.), but you'd have to be a God-damned genius to pull that off without inciting a war with all 50 states... that's what we did in the Mid-East. That's no small trick no matter what you think of WHY we did it. Your personal religious bias, or the Christians, or the Muslims, notwithstanding.

      Fact 1: Saddam attacked Israel a number of times during the first war with Iraq (remember the scuds? I do.), and has been threatening to do so ever since. He's wanted to wipe out Israel since before his war with Iran. He never threatened the _United States_. Never. So again, why do you think the US is so interested in protecting such a small group of such obviously violent jack offs?

      Fact 2: He had an extremely limited capability of reaching Israel with a missile (I would hesitate to say 'no capability'), scud or otherwise, but [if I remember the intelligence reports right] they think he intended to drive the nuke (or chemical or bio weapon) over, so a delivery capability wasn't really a consideration. If he got one, he WOULD use it. And that would be bad for everyone. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Repulican, Democrat, homo eructus, you name it.

      Fact 3: Saddam had money. Lots of it. We tried an embargo against Iraq for 10 years to limit his ability to _afford_ weapons or weapons programs. The fact that he had a pipeline feeding Syria a considerable amount of oil is simply evidence that the embargo wasn't working, and that Saddam still had plenty of cash-flow. It's not proof he was seeking weapons, I never said it was - but it did mean that Saddam had a steady source of income from friendly nations to him, and as such, the embargo's were failures. Saddam could AFFORD a weapon. The intelligence community believe(s,d) that if Saddam could afford a weapon, he would buy one. And if he bought one, there's no doubt in anyone's mind he would try to use it.

      Do you think he would really give a rat's ass which President the US had in office if he had a weapon? Are you really such a thick skulled ninny as to believe that the world's problems are caused by which ass-hole we put in charge this week?

      Get a clue. Start reading intelligence reports, foreign policy and sources of information other than the trash your reading now. You've taken a hard line anti-bush stance that will do nothing than get you kicked in the balls until your blue in the face. You'll gleefully kick back at the swinging nuggets of the hard line bush supporters, but the only thing you're both doing is turning blue. Now - look back at what I've been saying and tell me where

    5. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by k_head · · Score: 1

      Man you are all over the place. Republicans sure are disjointed in their thinking. I especially love your proof that saddam was about to purchase a nuclear weapons!. That's rich. Duh you see he has some money, and I think that he wanted nuclear weapons, and if he has money then he could buy nuclear weapons, and if he could buy nuclear weapons then he must have been trying to buy them!. Wow just a brilliant putting together of half baked conjectures there buddy. Brilliant proof that Saddam was on the verge of buying nuclear weapons.

      As for the muslims again your limited thinking processes lead you down weird passages. What were they going to attack us with spitballs? You think egypt or lebonan could take on the US army? You think they are stupid enough to launch tanks and airplanes to face the Bush war machine?

      Listen these people are not stupid. They realize a couple of things that you don't. First of all there are a lot of things in common with bush and saddam. Both men are ruthless when it comes to punishing their enemies. Neither man recognized any bounds when it comes to crushing resistance. These countries know that you can't face these kinds of enemies head on. If they attacked us Bush would stop at nothing to destroy them. Powell said on the record that US would use nuclear weapons if we wanted to.

      They will fight us in the only way that can have any hope of succeeding. By terrorism. They will fund and encourage terroists for generations to come. They will hit back but it won't be by firing missiles, they will instead detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city in the US. The hit won't come today, and maybe not even this year but it will come sooner or later. Arabs have long memories, if don't get anything else out of this conversation get that. One day you will open up the paper and see that millions of americans have died from a devestating attack in a large metorpolitan city. On that day say to yourself "They are attacking us becasue we invaded iraq".

      As for Israel you continue to avoid the question at hand and make stupid statements about how Saddam attempted his pathetic scud launches during the first gulf war. As if nothing has had happened in the intervening years.

      Sure he hated israel. Everybody does. Arabs do, europe does, russians do, even the chinese hate israel. We are the only friend Israel has in the world. And yet we can't go around invading every country that hates israel and has the capability to do them some harm. At some point they have to start fending for themselves for gods sake.

      When is enough enough? Why isn't 12 billion a year enough? Why do we have to spend another 100 billion a year to keep them safe. Fuck man don't your schools need repairs? Are all your roads pothole free? They have nculear weapons for christs sake they don't need any more my money. If they want to kill arabs for fun let them launch their missles and have fun. Shit if you can launch missiles at a 70 year or quadraplegic why can't you launch nuclear weapons at iraq? It's not like the israelis have any morals or anything. They keep three million people as domesticated animals for gods sake.

      You also put way too much faith in what the "inteligence community" says. These people have proved themselves to be extrememly incompetent during the last decade.

      Finally. I am a veteran. I know you sissy hawks have this fantasy that every member of the military is a republican like you but it aint so. I have sacrificed to make this country stong what have you done? You are lucky that you are not in front of me denying my sacrifice and service. I guess it's easy to do that from your mothers basement. Say that to my face and I will break both of your arms.

      I hate chicken shit wimps like you. Sit on your ass all day and thump your chest while other people kill and die for you. I know you get a hard on every time you read about some soldier killing somebody in your name. I know you it makes you feel great to know that "we're number one" as if you had anything to do with it, but get this straight you bedwetter: you are a spectator. That's all. You sit at the sidelines while real men do the work.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    6. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

      LOL! Good lord, did you forget your special helmet today space-boy? They're going to nuke us because we invaded Iraq? Jesus that's rich. Get a clue - they're going to nuke us for a hell of a lot more than Iraq, but you've got your head so far up your ass you wouldn't be able to figure it out if they were carving that laundry list on your skull. Hey - here's a question - off the top of your head name the 3 most active terrorist groups in the middle east and why they're trying to kill us. [Integrity check ass-hole, don't go googling it - just admit that you have no fucking idea who they are. And if our intelligence is bad, who do you think knee-capped it in the first place? 3 guesses and I'll bet you still fuck it up].

      Second challenge - quote any of my posts in this chain that you think are obviously republican - and I'll show you someone who thinks that everyone is either republican or on your side. And that's the problem with dicks like you - it's always "us vs. them". Up 'till now I was actually interested in what you were thinking. But you'd have none of that, would you?

      Third, you might note the increased contempt of this post. That's because I think your a liar. I don't think you served a single fucking day as a member of the military, and quite frankly I'm offended at your sorry attempt to steal credibility from the men (and women) who EARNED it. I'm betting that you weren't even so much as a boy scout. Why? Because of your comments. You're just another ass hole pulling the flag out of his ass and waving it in the face of someone you don't agree with. Veteran my ass - I am in fact denying you your sacrifice and service because it never happened. I don't believe for one second that you sacrificed so much as a dougnut and coffee for this country.

      You want me to say it to your face? I'll be in Vegas June 17th - 24th. Name your day and I'll see you outside the Luxor - I shouldn't be too hard to spot. I'll be the pissed off looking asshole with the high and tight, wearing a black T. The one with my unit on it, crossed rifles and all. And I have *8 years* in the Marine Corps Infantry that says I can kick your sorry ass right off this planet.

      If I'm a spectator, you're the screaming, fat, blue painted pot bellied idiot with a half a hot dog hanging out the crack of his too tight jeans on fox news getting thrown out of the stadium for acting like a pompous ass by shouting profanities at the ref for some perceived favoritism against your team.

    7. Re:K head, I'll 'splain it. by k_head · · Score: 1

      Of all the things to pretend you are you choose to pretend you are a Marine. That makes sense in a way.

      I would galdly break your arms but I am not going to Vegas to do it.

      I'll figure out who you are don't worry. You'll get a chance to back up your words.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  299. I really don't think so. by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

    "international law" is practically non-existant. On the other hand I can tell you that under US law copyrights are definitely revokable when a court rules that that copyright has been abused. The material in question then falls back to the public domain.

    International copyright treaties are not so insignificant. Also, there is a difference between a judge ruling a copyright invalid and approving its seizure.

    I've yet to see anything that suggests this is even rempotely possible, and there is good reason to assume it's not.

    Leveraging copyright powers as part of illegal anti-trust violations could certainly qualify as abuse of copyright, and refusing to pay lawfully ordered court damages could certainly escalate the damages to to full blown revokation.

    That may be common sense, but it's completely unsupported legally. This court deals with monopolistic violations. Nonpayment of the fine would land MS in debtors' court or some analog. The two matters wouldn't even be overseen by the same judge, and a civil judge in a debt matter certainly wouldn't have the power to revoke a copyright.

    And again, international copyright is governed by treaty anyway, which does not to my knowledge make such provisions for nonpayment of fines in a completely unrelated matter.

    1. Re:I really don't think so. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Also, there is a difference between a judge ruling a copyright invalid and approving its seizure.

      I am not reffering to a court ruling that a copyright was not valid, nor I am not reffering to a "seisure". I am reffering to the court's ability to rule such rights unenforcable due to misuse of copyright.

      I apologize for confusing the issue by calling it "abuse of copyright". The correct legal term is "misuse of copyright". It traces back to at least 1942 in Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger, 314 U.S. 488. More recently the issue arose when Napster counter-sued the RIAA:

      A judge's decision allowing Napster to pursue copyright misuse claims against major record labels seems to signal a sea change in the music industry's lawsuit against the peer-to-peer song-swapping service, according to a trio of legal experts. In a Jan. 16 hearing, the transcript of which was obtained by Newsbytes, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel told lawyers that she had decided to begin a discovery phase in the trial, allowing Napster to examine whether music labels have misused their copyrights. If she were to rule that labels have misused their rights, one expert told Newsbytes, at the extreme it could mean the labels could not enforce their copyrights.

      Obviously it didn't happen in that case. The RIAA has repeatedly been on the virge of an anti-trust case for it's on-line service shenanigans.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  300. To put nelson tags around it you must type... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    &lt; nelson &gt; Ha Ha! &lt; /nelson &gt;

    Yielding: <nelson>Ha Ha!</nelson>
    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:To put nelson tags around it you must type... by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Cheers!

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  301. We wouldn't have bombed the hell out of Iraq, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if Saddam hadn't messed around with the UN inspectors so much. And I dont mean the latest round of inspectors, I mean the inspectors we'de been sending for the past 10 years. If he hadn't acted like he was hiding something for so long, we wouldn't have suspected him of HAVING anything. Dont any of you remember the YEARS when we kept sending people, and they conveniently had all thier notes/film/documents confiscated OVER and OVER and OVER again. Equipment destroyed, etc etc etc. I mean come on, even if we didn't find any of the weapons, thats probably because he had 10 years to find suitable hiding places for them.

  302. Re:True enough but this is a traffic ticket to B.G by Shurhaian · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Food is a necessity of life. Speeding is not. Similarly, Microsoft can still manage to stay in business with fairer business practises. A fine is punitive, not assessed for something that is necessary, so it should thus be steep enough to at least make the perpetrator think.

    Of course, some offences have steeper penalties than others, but it's for the EU to determine what sort of offence Microsoft has committed. If they think it warrants a traffic-ticket penalty, so mote it be. People in the EU can no doubt communicate with their representatives if they feel that's not an appropriate penalty.

    Now, if Microsoft is found to be using downright illegal methods to keep a stranglehold on their corner of local economy(using one wrong to achieve another), things might need another look - because then, they are threatening people's livelihood; that of the people running their competition. If those companies are forced under by shady practises, those people suddenly find the necessities of life to be a little harder to get.

    --
    NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
  303. Not gonna work - the French and the Russian have by melted · · Score: 1

    NUCULAR WEAPONS. You roll your troops in there and they evaporate the freakin' Missisipi with nucular warheads.

  304. Re:Typical Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we will use Pirelli tires.
    We'll give you back the computers - the analogue ones. The first free programmable and digital coputersystem was invented by Konrad Zuse, Germany.
    I think, you really need masses of transistors next time...
    You can take back electricity, but you wont be able to produce it, because the first generators and dynamoes where invented by Werner von Siemens, Germany. Without perms, our women will look fine, naturally. Long hairs are looking nice and elegant. Much better, as overdressed Hollywood bitches, with tons of chemicals in their hairs.
    Okay, we will have no light by light bulbs in future - we will use neontubes by Osram...
    No more TV - Yeah! Heaven on Earth! People will
    make love instead of it... :)

  305. How often can they be fined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the traffic ticket comparisons that have been mentioned, if you speed again after getting the ticket, you get another ticket, and another, and so on as long as that behavior continues. Eventually, you can lose your license and then you can start getting jail time. If MS continues the practice after getting a fine, do they get fined again? How long of a wait would there be until the next fine is applied? A one-time E500M may not be much to them, but E500M/month would have a much larger impact.

  306. Re:Oh, please... by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > Kerry was basically saying "75% of Americans support this action.. well then So Do I!"

    Ignoring personal morality for a second, isn't that what a democracy is?

  307. -1 overrated : communist (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (n/t) = no text

  308. Re:Typical Europeans by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Well, we will use Pirelli tires

    What will they be made of?? The vulcanization of rubber is ours.

    We'll give you back the computers - the analogue ones. The first free programmable and digital coputersystem was invented by Konrad Zuse, Germany.

    This is debatable. ENIAC was operational in 1945 when Konrad Zuse began building his.

    You Europeans didn't want the computer anyway, as you burned the first one to ashes (Collosus), and therefore you can not prove that you actually built one.

    Also, you'll have to use vacuum tubes. Transistors belong to us.

    Joseph Henry, an American, is credited as the first who discovered the principles of a dynamo.

    Without perms, our women will look fine, naturally. Long hairs are looking nice and elegant. Much better, as overdressed Hollywood bitches, with tons of chemicals in their hairs.

    We both agree. We have Hollywood bitches.

    I bet you wouldn't turn down a date with one though.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  309. Re:Typical Europeans by eclectro · · Score: 1

    O.K., you can have "mechanical" TV. We'll keep the electronic TV.

    He later admitted the deficiencies of his sytem as unworkable.

    It's one thing to have an idea, and quite another to make it work.

    Also, don't forget that motion pictures is an Edison invention also.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  310. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Aardpig · · Score: 1

    Here's another hint. Typo's are accidents.

    The plural of "typo" is "typos", not "typo's". An apostrophe indicates possession, not plurality. Dipshit.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  311. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    *rofl*

    Lets see if the Eurotrash can spot the problem with this reply!

    God, your such a prick!

    Should be an easy one...

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  312. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Aardpig · · Score: 1

    Lets see if the Eurotrash can spot the problem with this reply!

    Easy; you're an undereducated dipshit who doesn't know when to lie down.

    Oh, and for the record: I live in the USA. Dipshit.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  313. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Oh, and for the record: I live in the USA. Dipshit.

    Funny. You *do* know how to 'lie down' then? Seeing as you're continuing this just as much as I am?

    Dipshit.

    So you're not Eruotrash. I guess you *do* have that going for you. Must be killer with the ladies.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  314. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Aardpig · · Score: 1

    So you're not Eruotrash.

    That would be 'Eurotrash'. Dipshit.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  315. Re:-1, Self-flagellating by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Whoohoo!

    That would be 'Eurotrash'. Dipshit.

    Fantastic! You relize that your Eurotrash! Yay!

    Now, I know these ones will be easy...

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  316. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 1

    "You seem to be saying that yes, Iraq will (and is) benefiting from our occupation, but that none of it was justified simply because there are countries worse off than Iraq."

    No. I am saying that the purpose of us going in there was oil (mostly) the liberation of the iraqis was a mere side effect.

    "Am I completely unjustified in giving my neighbor a cupful of sugar simply because there are starving kids in Africa that could use it more?"

    Bad analogy. A better one is that both of your neighbors are starving and you choose to feed the pretty one so you can rape her. You let the ugly one die of hunger because you can't get a hard on around her.

    "I have little doubt that it might just prove an essential part of world peace (eventually, in won't happen tomorrow or within the decade)."

    It won't ever happen. There will never be world peace. This act by Bush has made the world less peaceful not more.

    "The US has done a lot of shitty things around the world, but oftentimes the ends justifiy the means."

    I believe that you are indeed articulating the position of the Bush white house. Lying, stealing, bribing, handing out fat contracts to friends etc are all accepted if the end is access to cheap oil. It's the halmark of moral bankrupcy of this administration.

    "The simple fact that the Iraq war is under such high scrutiny from the rest of the world is a good thing in itself. It will force us to be extra careful, determined, and devoted to it."

    The us spends more on it's military then the rest of the world combined. This administration has put the world on notice that he will kill anybody who opposes us any time for any reason that he wants. Nobody can stop us from invading and taking over any country on this planet and Bush has said the is willing to use force to meet his desires. You are either with us or against us. Those are not hollow words. He will kill anybody who gets in his way.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  317. Wristslap that fails to change behavior helps us? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    The "slap on the wrist" analogy is often used to show that a penalty is too light, but in fact the whole point of a slap on the wrist is to get your attention and change your way of thinking and acting.

    According to the article, Microsoft is projecting making $8.6B this quarter and the top fine the EU chooses to stick them with is $3.43B. It's hard for me to believe that this rises to the level of a slap on the wrist; this is something Microsoft could literally write a check for which covers the maximum possible fine then dismiss the matter entirely; call it the cost of doing business. It seems to me that Microsoft's Gutierrez is raising his objection chiefly for show, to give the public the appearance that this fine will "get [their] attention and change [their] way of thinking and acting" (in your words) but we all know that it won't change anything about Microsoft.

    I have to wonder, how badly does a corporation have to behave before the public (which ostensibly elects the lawmakers) thinks it's okay to take action against that corporation and actually work to put people in office who will pass reasonable laws? And what, exactly, would be done against that corporation if this were a more democratic decision? Could a corporation do anything to merit being liquidated entirely (a corporate death penalty)? Or disincorporated and have their top 15% wage earners become personally liable for the corporation's fines and losses to investors due to their misbehavior?

  318. Re:Oh, please... by roguebfl · · Score: 1
    The inspectors found evidence of destruction but it was impossible to determine exactly how much was destroyed.


    add int the fact that chemical weapons have a shelf life, that had expired before the war began
    --
    --Rogue, who's existance has yet to be disproved
  319. Re:this really pisses me off... by jkcity · · Score: 1

    the reason thirdpart middle ware works so crappily is they keep trying to force me to upgrade and take over my system, I actually think real mdeia player does a better job of playing most files than windows media player but its still a junk player, and quicktime is just slow with an ultra awful interface, getting access to any magic api won't make any of these programs better.

  320. Re:Oh, please... by aixou · · Score: 1

    No. I am saying that the purpose of us going in there was oil (mostly) the liberation of the iraqis was a mere side effect.


    With what evidence? Hypothetically, were the war for oil, would the Iraqis liberation then be completely unjustified?

    A better one is that both of your neighbors are starving and you choose to feed the pretty one so you can rape her. You let the ugly one die of hunger because you can't get a hard on around her.


    We're choosing to help Iraq so we can rape them? If their standard of living increases, their economy becomes powerful, and their lives become safer, are they still victims of American rape? Oh wait, let me guess. The only reason they might come to like the US is because they've been victims of propagranda and brutality? It can't possibly be that we've actually given these people a chance at democratic peace.

    It won't ever happen. There will never be world peace. This act by Bush has made the world less peaceful not more.


    I would argue that a world with tyrannical dictators can not be a peaceful world. With dictators as paranoid as Saddam and Kim Jong-il, you're gonna be hardpressed to find any people that have any hope of amassing the organization required to overthrow their government.

    Outside intervention is the best way for these people to have any hope at longterm peace.

    Without intervention, their dictatorships are going nowhere. Therefore, what do you propose? That we sit on our thumbs, to appease western europe, as foreign dictators commit genocide on their own people?

    I believe that you are indeed articulating the position of the Bush white house. Lying, stealing, bribing, handing out fat contracts to friends etc are all accepted if the end is access to cheap oil. It's the halmark of moral bankrupcy of this administration.


    Again, the oil argument. There is no reasonable motive that justifies this conspiracy theory. Some people have this image of Bush as evil and greedy, and the idea that the whole war might be for oil helps perpetuate the idea. It might work well in Liberal peace protests (where any mention of Halliburton gets people frothing at the mouths), but at the end of the day, there is not much substance to the argument.

    The fact that the ends may justify the means in a war seems to fall on deaf ears with most Liberals.

    * Leftists love the concept of peace.
    * A war can bring peace. (god forbid)
    * Leftists hate war.

    This left-wing paradox seems to be indecipherable to so many anti-war peeps.

    It is a simple fact that aggression is sometimes needed to bring peace. Anyone who has even a vague recollection of Elementary school playground dynamics should be able to reason through this. Sometimes you have to bully the bully in order to get him to stop bullying. This doesn't make you a bully, but it does help you bring the peace.

  321. Re:Oh, please... by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

    What about us shifty-eyed Canadians? We don't need missiles, we can just walk across the border to attack...Better nuke the hell out of us while our hockey stick arsenal program is in it's infancy...Hussein and bin Laden were once your allies against the Russians in Afghanistan can you really afford to wait until we turn on you too?

    --
    When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
  322. [OT] Please contact me. by cduffy · · Score: 1

    HuguesT: I was quite substantially enjoying a discussion we were having in a different thread, which you've left idle for some time now without replying. As you don't have any email address visible via this site, and a google for your nick brings up nothing promising, I'm reduced to asking here that this thread be continued, either on this site or via private mail.

    Thanks! (And sorry, all others, for the noise).

  323. Re:Oh, please... by k_head · · Score: 1

    "With what evidence?"

    The oil fields are under the control of the US military. The french contracts have been cancelled. Those contracts have been given to American oil companies. All industries in Iraq are eligible for privatization except oil. Iraq is no longer a member of OPEC. Do I really need more evidence then that?

    "Hypothetically, were the war for oil, would the Iraqis liberation then be completely unjustified?"

    No. Just a side effect. It does not change the fact that we were lead to war by lies.

    "We're choosing to help Iraq so we can rape them? If their standard of living increases, their economy becomes powerful, and their lives become safer, are they still victims of American rape?"

    Yes. To continue our analogy. Both of your neighbors are starving. You choose to feed the pretty one. You move into her house, it happens to contain a lot of stuff that she can't eat but you find valuable so you take take it. Your primary interest however is her pussy. You really want that pussy more then anything else. You feed her and buy her nice clothes that makes her more attractive to you. You have some restrictions on what she can do but by and large she is free to move about. She is now better fed, dresses better, even puts on some more make up. Maybe you get her a job so she won't be leeching off of you. You also lend her a lot of money to buy nice things and a car so she can get around (she does have to pay you back though). Throughout all this you continue to fuck her whever you want and use her stuff. She is not allowed to object to your raping her, her pussy belongs to you. She can fuck other people if she wants but she can't ever refuse you. You on the other hand can fuck whoever else you want. You can even invade other houses and set up similar situations there. Meanwhile the ugly neighbor continues to starve and suffer while you sip martinis on the porch while getting blowjobs from the now prettier, better fed, happier pussy.

    "I would argue that a world with tyrannical dictators can not be a peaceful world."

    I agree. I also think the the US is uniquely qualified to end tyranny in the world. We are powerful enough to end all opression and depose all tyrants. Too bad nobody in the whitehouse believes that. Too bad they are only interested in liberating people who have stuff they want.

    "The fact that the ends may justify the means in a war seems to fall on deaf ears with most Liberals."

    That's most likely due to the fact we took courses in ethics and philosophy in collage. We have read the great books and thinkers of our times like Kant or saint augistine for example. A solid education in the classics tend to do that to you.

    BTW. War never brings peace. It shuffles the cards around. WW2 stopped hitler but gave birth to communist russia and china. That later on gave birth to the korean war and vietnam and of course the cold war. Which was worse? I'd say it's a push.

    "Sometimes you have to bully the bully in order to get him to stop bullying."

    In this case we are the bully. We jut beat up a kid and took his lunch money.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  324. Re:Back to the issue at hand, MS has the right to. by nazzdeq · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the market spoke, and it said "Windows" All of those people could have bought TRS-80's, Commodore 64's, Amigas, Atari STs, Macs or they can run Linux now. Nobody twisted anyone's arm and made them buy Windows. That's not a monopoly. A company that has a monopoly seals in the customers fate in that the customer has no other choice. Period. Like when you could only get AT&T phone service in the states. There were no other phone companies. You were screwed. With computers, it's different and ALWAYS has been. I had a Commodore 64 and an Amiga. Nobody forced me to buy a Windows box. People bought them because Windows catered to the business market and other computer makers didn't do so effectively. Look at Apple's pathetic attempt even today. What id Sun do for the consumer? Nothing. People wanted to use (in 99% of cases steal) the same software and run it at home, so they chose Windows. So, where's the monopoly? Did Bill Gates twist your arm?? I run Linux and Mac OS X and the only MS product I use is Office, and that's my choice. Telling a company what they can distribute with their own product is very dangerous and the goverment is out of line. Nazz

  325. Re:Oh, please... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
    So as world policeman you punish the poor and powerless for the actions of the tyrant?

    Im sorry but i dont get it. Its not like they elected him, why would you punish the weak?

  326. Figures by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

    I'll figure out who you are don't worry. You'll get a chance to back up your words.

    Tell you what, I'll make it easy for you. Name a time and place that's easy for you and I'll try to make it. And if I can't make it we'll figure out some mutually agreeable time that I can. In fact, I think most cities are doing those 'fight club' nights - what do you say we sign up for a grudge match? That should keep us both honest and you won't have to waste a single day looking me up.

    Again, it's up to you pal. But for christ's sake, don't threaten to 'look me up' to give me my chance. Either face me or don't, but don't be a coward about it.

    1. Re:Figures by k_head · · Score: 1

      Time for words is over. You said to come and get you and I will. You were a marine, you probably have a gun. I'd suggest you start carrying it.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
  327. Read the law! by s13g3 · · Score: 1

    Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.


    How about KNOWING the laws you are trying to enforce, you insensitive clod! :p

    Oh, and to the poster who made the original reference, you not only LOST the arguement by making the comparison, you are making plain for all to see what an uneducated fool you are. Any comparison is ludicrous until Bush:
    1.) Commits or attempts genocide.
    2.) Invades his three closest neighbors on a mission of conquest and empire building (It's not as if we're trying to KEEP or colonialize Iraq and Afghansitan [though I've been in favor of colonizing Iraq with the option to apply for statehood in 100 years since the first Gulf War]), and,
    3.) Imprisons his OWN COUNTRYMEN in death/work/detention camps. Foreign combatants DO NOT count!

    Please note, I did not vote for GWB, but he was a damn sight a better choice than that spineless pansy Gore. I will almost certainly vote for Bush over whoever the Democratic nominee is (John "Effing" Kerry? NO way), seeing as there doesn't seem to be an independant running this year. He's FUBAR'd some stuff up here, but it could be a lot worse (How about three times the already ridiculous tax rate, as the Dem's would have it... Why should I give away even more of my hard-earned money so some worthless slacker who hasn't worked a day in the last 15 years can continue to live on welfare eating as well [if not better] than I do, and make more babies in- between Jerry Springer and the next soap opera?), and in the long run, the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do. Maybe some Iraqi's are protesting in the streets right now, but they are mostly blowing EACH OTHER up now, not us. Besides, were it not for the U.S. soldiers there right now, those protesting would all be dead or dying in Saddam or Uday's torture chambers. We've given them freedoms such as they've never had in their entire history. Bush has done a great thing here, and anybody who says differently (One guy [a Frenchman] said to me, "They [the Iraqi people] were neither ready for, nor deserving of liberty because they are too culturally backwards and repressed to handle freedom, like most Arabs.") is a facist at heart, pure and simple.


    --
    All your terrorist base are belong to U.S.!

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  328. MOD PARENT +1 INSIGHTFUL by s13g3 · · Score: 1

    Bravo! Any political campaign based on hate marks those campaigning (the 'ee's and the 'ers both) as dangerous and suspect at best. If your vote is based solely on the fact that you personally dislike someone and the person you vote for has no other reasonable or logical platform besides the fact that you and they are still angry that that worthless lump of flesh Al Gore lost the election, either give up or your voter card or go somewhere else please, and quit polluting my nations politics with your ignorance and lack of forethought. Whether you call it Communism, Socialism, or the National Democratic Party, it is still Communism.

    If: 1 + 2 = 3 then A + B = C then
    Hillary R. Clinton + Card Carrying Socialist = COMMUNIST

    Communist Russia was built on facism, hate, and the blood of innocents... And you people want to elect this woman in 2008 when so much of every Democratic campaign, movement and bill the last 3+ years has been based on hate against Bush or an attempt to make our laws and land a socialiist one? This woman's speeches sound like nails on a blackboard and much more closely resemble the impassioned speeches of Hitler's (though far less moving or articulate... Speaking fluent German, being a Jew and having listened to Hitler's speeches, I can tell you I'd rather to Hitler than Hillary [Hitllary?] any day). Seriously, at least Bush's campaigns and ideals aren't based on communism and hate. He may be an asshole who doesn't always make the choice I would have made, or done it ecxactly the way I would have, but at least he's got some guts, and is motivated by what he feels is in the best interests of the nation... Not a feeling I get from either Clinton, who seem to be motivated only by money, power, and polls. Not a good combination. Maybe Bill has a higher IQ, but he showed his lack of sense when he failed to pursue Bin Laden as vigorously as he could have. And anybody who tells me Clarke is telling the truth and wasn't paid by the Clinton's to wait until exactly now to pull this shit has their heads up their asses.

    --
    root@yggsdrasil> grep /bin/laden

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  329. FOOL! by s13g3 · · Score: 1

    How many times do you people have to be told???
    The US is a Republic not a Socialist Democracy, so please, get your facts straight people! Mob-rule does not work!

    Rome was a republic too. Rome also fell. But yanno, during the time of the Roman Republic, the citizens of Rome were by far and large much better off than the citizens of any other land, as are the citizens of the U.S. right now... Beware those who would make our great nation a Socialist one and then subject (or subvert) it's will and the will and wants of it's people to another entity like the U.N. who just wants to steal money and resources from those who work so hard to make this country the great place it is. Billary would rather everybody get equal shares for unequal work, rather than reward those who deserve it and let those who do nothing (e.q. 60%+ of welfare recipients, IMO) and deserve support the least to rot, as it should be. Take a closer look at the LEFT and the FAR LEFT as well as it's figureheads and leaders, and you'll get a much clearer picture of Socialism and Facism than you will from the right. My biggest problem with the right-wingers is their religious agenda and anti-abortion stances, but the last thing you can do is call them facist. Pull your head out of your ass and try a dispassionate and honest observation of your own views before you start dissembling on the views of others.

    Wow, this whole thread is WAY off topic... Classic example of what /. has degenerated to, I suppose. Shame on me for contributing to it, but these people need straightening out, damnit.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage