Slashdot Mirror
EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft
doga writes "As reported by various publications, Microsoft is facing its deadline tonight at midnight central European time. The commissioner has then to decide whether it implemented correctly the measures (windows without media player and interop documentation) or if it should be fined up to 5% of its daily sales." From the article: "European antitrust regulators, who have been at odds with Microsoft over its efforts to comply with its order, hope to make a decision by July 20 as to whether Microsoft has submitted an acceptable proposal for compliance, said Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Union. That date is the last meeting of the European Commission before its summer recess."
As I type, it is approx. 14:35 PST. Add 9 hours and one gets to 23:35.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Bill Gates: "Ooh, the Germans are mad at me? I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans!"
(ok, shamelessly stolen from The Simpsons)
The owls are not what they seem
Expect France to vote "Yes" on this one !
The deadline expires tonight.
Then, it will take a few weeks to decide on a punishment (if any).
Then a few more weeks to decide if the decision is the right one.
Then another month to decide if the decision of the decision was a good one.
Then submit it for a committee vote.
Wait - who had the decision?
I thought you had it? Where did it go?
What were we deciding upon?
I don't know. Let's hold a meeting and see if we can decide on it.
What's for lunch?
I don't know you - you decide.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
How about free market extremists with no idea of the economic terms "deadweight loss", "externality", or "market failure" and why they are bad things to have going on in your economy. Can I hate them instead?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Because in Europe, there are laws again anti-competitive measures (like bundling WMP or IE) used by companies having a monopoly or a REALLY good hold of the market?
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Saw this image earlier and got a good laugh.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.
Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap.
These things are about Microsoft's market position and business practices. No, they aren't pointing guns, because they aren't armored criminals, but they are using certain business practices some organizations don't like.
Let the free-market decide.
The problem is that the market is less free to choose when one company is by far dominating the software market, and in addition to this trying to ensure others have a hard time competing (what this case is about).
You've got Apple as well, go buy a Mac; or install Linux.
Yes, this is a good tip if you wish to easier see the problem.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Here we go again, the free-market zealots who don't care that the assumptions of a free market are secured. Yawn, indeed. Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Is that 5% of the gross or 5% of the net?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Unfortunately, by the time you've got a gun to your head, its a little late to do much about it.
I'm guessing you don't believe that a company that is sufficiently large can ask the government to hold the gun? See oil companies/clothing companies in many countries.
> Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap.
No, but they are pointing market dominance at PC manufacturers' heads, thus limiting my freedom to select my hardware supplier and OS supplier seperately.
If the invisible hand really worked that well, it'd probably be making sure monopolies didn't exist, not giving uneducated folks like you handjobs in return for drooling praise.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Every distro I've tried had tones of stuff bundled with it. How should this be considered? Same as IE/WMP in Windows? Hopefully not... here are my two reasons:
1. Any other OS does not have a monopoly - different rules apply (or, to be precise - antimonopolistic rules don't apply).
2. All that extra stuff in Linux is not integrated with OS (for example AFAIR you can't uninstall IE).
What do you think? Has this problem been mentioned/discussed somewhere?
I've heard the whole spiel on the EU thing from Microsoft's point of view, as can only be gotten off the record by a personal friend (he works on Longhorn). To put it simply, Microsoft will comply with the EU's demands as they have to, and they will adapt as necessary - but there are some things on which they simply will not budge, and most of those relate to how they engineer their software.
Microsoft's internal opinion of the EU is that it is acting entirely for economical reasons, that is, selfish ones. Fining Microsoft millions means lots of needed cash for some of the EU members whose economies aren't doing too hot. It also means the apprecation of Microsoft's competitors in the region (Real, Apple, etc.) who would, to use my friend's phrase, "line their (the EU's) coffers with cash."
Incidentally, Microsoft is perfectly capable of pulling its business completely out of EU nations, though that is of course an absolute last option. Note that such a move would be disastrous for consumers there (and don't think for a second that it wouldn't be), but Microsoft would continue as ever.
The coolest voice ever.
what are taxes if not forcing you to give up something you produce?
or fines in criminal court?
or judgements in civil court?
according to the EU courts ms broke the law. If they wan't to remain trading in the EU they have to accept the courts judgements.
ofc it could come down to a game of chicken and a case of does the EU need MS more than MS needs the EU.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
> Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce?
I dunno? Why do people assume that the "right to what they produce" is somehow codified into our DNA or laws of physics or something equally irrefutable?
Strangely enough, infinate ownership was the exact kind of fuedal bullshit copyright and patent laws were enacted to prevent. If you cared to look outside of your miopic existance, you'll find loads of social and historical examples of what happens when too much power is placed in the hands of the producer, or the consumer.
It's all about balance. Sorry, I know thats not very sexy idea from an ideological parrot point of view.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Or more simply, because we can...
How... unilateral of you.
Please, do that.
Didn't the US rely on sovereign authority when it invaded part of the middle east, despite claims by its European rivals that it had no such authority? Sovereign authority is not lost on the US and it won't be federated away to Chirac anytime soon, friend.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
... but the realy question is, when will we know what or if MS submitted a new proposal?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
People brushing these things off always seem to ignore or forget the fact that trustbuilding is illegal. You don't think the government should be limiting abuse of markets, or taking steps to halt anticompetitive behavior, or busting trusts? Fine. The proper thing to do then would be complain to the lawmakers, and try to get the law changed. The proper thing to do would not be to whine about the poor abused multibillion dollar monopolies when people decide, hey, we're going to start actually considering enforcing the laws on the books now.
Microsoft was been unfairly treated? How so? How were they "treated" at all? In the Netscape case the government found them guilty and then walked away without doing one damn thing to them. How often does that happen? Looks to me like they got the treatment of royalty.
Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish.
And the fact that the browser with 90%ish market share has been able to effectively halt work on and adoption spread of open standards such as CSS2 or SVG is just a coincidence? As is the way that the messy derailing of Java as an application platform immediately followed that same browser/os company all but by their own hand preventing the widespread adoption of versions past the very primitive 1.1 or so?
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.
If that was what the EU was after, they'd have implemented the fine at violation, rather than as an absolute absolute last resort after over a year of deliberation, delay, pussyfooting, and giving Microsoft chance after chance to comply with the law.
Considering Microsoft tried to destroy the Web.
IE would have stopped talking to Apache and slowly broke the web. This was their strategy.
IE talking to IIS servers on WinOS only, think of the insane liscensing costs of even a small server farm.
The Web is worth nillions, 5% of M$ daily sales is chump change considering the loss to Commerce Worldwide.
Now of course Governments shouldn't stick their noses in, but the courts should and did when a monopoly behaves illegally just like for any other crime - it is a legal matter and was pursued as such.
This is why Netscape went Open Source, because Microsoft was buying the web and Netscape realised its server business, where the money was, would be over when IE had blanket coverage and Netscape couldn't afford the developers to fight back.
Microsoft commited a crime, they broke the law and they still are, they should be punished and the punishment should fit the crime - it is pretty small ion fact, as evidenced by Microsoft completely ignoring it.
If only America had the balls to follow suit they might be brought to heel, if not break 'em up, just like Ma Bell.
Massive monopolies do not a healthy market economy make.
if the 5% would be destinated for the 3rd world or for cancer research, or...
but apparently it's just another case of business warfare
Microsoft's business model depends entirely on the idea of denying its potential competitors funding in order to prevent their future viability. If the EU became a "No MS zone" by Microsoft's own choice, that would be more than enough funding to support a viable competitor, hell, to support any number of viable competitors. Those viable competitors would then inevitably wind up selling in the U.S., and unable to deny them a market-- because it would no longer be able to impact the market in which they are rooted, in the EU, in any way-- Microsoft would have to compete on the merits of their own product, something they can't and don't do.
Microsoft wouldn't pull out of the EU. The money they'd lose by pulling out of the EU would of course be effectively irrelivant; Microsoft has money to burn. But the control they'd lose by pulling out of the EU would be, to Microsoft, unacceptable.
Why can microsoft not go 'Oh yes, you may have ruled against us as an EU court, but your laws do not apply where we are located. Ask GW.'
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
OK so MS are a monopolist. This position would have caused them to become lazy, complacent, expensive and they would have driven customers away. The government forcing them to change their ways will simply prolong the time they hold the monopoly for.
Commies don't matter BTW, don't you understand your own liberal free market argument?
Deleted
If you live in the USA, then your state's authority was federated away a couple of centuries ago.
All the while Linux and Mac users enjoy all the bundled software that comes for free with their OSs.
All I have to do on an OS.X boxen to get rid of Safari is to move the app to the trash can. Internet Exporer for Windows is wired into the OS in such a way as to make it very hard to remove. The same apparently applies to Media Player 10. Some of the bundled software on a Mac is provided by other companies than Apple. You do have a point in that Apple provides programs like iDVD, iMovie and iPhoto but at least none of them is hard wired into the OS.
Pretty unilateral, yes, I was a bit angry at the PP. Anyway the point I was to trying to get across is that all of this has got nothing to do with fairness, as the OP seems to imply with his "oh it's so unfair" claims. All revolves around economical interests here and, being quite a powerful economical entity, the EU has decided to flex her (yes, female :) muscles in a fight.
In the end, sovereign authority is about just that - the will to enter a pissing contest about who will outlast whom: in a real war, in an power struggle for dominance in a market, etc. So in a way you can argue that the US do understand what sov. auth. means :) perhaps better than anyone else, come to think of it. Ah, sophisms...
And of course the remark about banning products was sarcastic. I guess you know that, so why answer with such a "go on, see if we care" attitude? what good would it do to you (or us, of course) if MS products happened to be really banned from the EU? Kind of... interesting scenario though...
Finally, I really don't get your point about the recent vote. What's that got do to with anything we're discussing here?
Global warming is a cube.
Linux and Apple do not hold monopolies on their markets, so even if they wanted to, they can't break the relevant laws. The findings in the US and Europe were that M$ has broken those laws, and even a casual familiarity with their business practices would hardly leave anyone in doubt!
If M$ won't respect the law, they should be penalised. Of course, I'd rather see them penalised by a total market boycott, but that probably assumes an unrealistic level of common sense from their customers and potential customers...
you had me at #!
Linux isn't a monopoly, anti-monopolistic rules don't apply.
That and this case wouldn't arise under Linux. You aren't "forced" to use XMMS, you're even given a selection to install when installing your distro. You can't remove WMP, you can't remove IE.
Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce? A right to ownership? Maybe because they know they cannot produce.
It's a give and take: the state also acts as "collectivists" when they allows such things as incorporation: which allows individual investors to get off the hook for paying out for failed business ventures.
It also supports copyrights, patents, and other such interferances in the free market, in order to promote the collective good.
Why, when a corporation is being punished for knowingly violating anti-trust laws (laws made to protect the market, and the public good), are you suddenly upset?
Microsoft probably wouldn't even exist in the first place without government protections in the form of copyright monopolies and laws to support incorporation. Microsoft willfully breaks the law; but heartily sues anyone who does the same. How is that fair?
--
AC
Finally, I really don't get your point about the recent vote. What's that got do to with anything we're discussing here?
By "recent vote" you mean the EU constitution? I make no point about that. That's an internal EU matter; the US has no say, no relevance, as it should not. I refer to cases where France ("Chirac") Germany and other rivals claim UN authority trumps US sovereignty.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Okay, I'll just roll on out to the local store and buy my Linux-based laptop. Then I'll use my laptop to write up my resume and save it in the industry standard document format. I'll then apply for a position at all the companies whose websites are accessible with a standards compliant browser. Then I'll celebrate this personal victory by playing one of the many games that it can run.
No, you really don't get it. Microsoft has managed to wedge themselves into the PC market, mainly through vendor lock-in strategies like proprietary file formats for things people depend on. It's damned difficult for PC vendors to not deliver PCs installed with microsoft, because understandably some percentage of a PC vendor's customers will want microsoft installed, but unless the vendor agrees to ship _ALL_ PCs with microsoft installed, microsoft threatens to pull the vendors license to ship microsoft. If the vendor gets their license pulled, they lose a lot of business. What would be fair is if microsoft just let the vendor decide which OS they want to ship for which proportion of their PCs. Microsoft is pointing a gun at the PC vendors heads and telling them what to sell.
There are plenty of people and companies today who really want to switch away from microsoft for very legitimate and understandable reasons, like the constant barrage of security holes, increasingly agressive licensing policies, etc., but they can't because they are locked in by the formats on the documents which they have invested so much time and effort into.
Microsoft is a bully to everyone it deals with, and it's time that the bully is dealt with by those who have the power to do it.
--
podz
put away the Thesaurus. Your statements go back and forth between childish arguments, to aristocratic gibberish. Plain and simple for this article summed up in three phrases 1)I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it 2)Microsofts been very bad 3)its up to the governments to make sure we progress into the future not to regress intpo the past.. wow the same usual arguments i hear everytime microsoft is discussed..Even though this article is completely way to long and way to overlyworded, I give the person credit if he can understand his own writing..got a question for you author..what OS do you use..sorry didnt feel like trying to reread all that to see...
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Is this the deadline for compliance or for submitting a proposal that would hopefully eventually result in compliance?
So in short, to sum up the consequences of your post:
1) Microsoft had nothing to do with pressuring laptop manufacturers to only install Windows
2) Microsoft hasn't attempted to make their document formats noncompliant with any standard (and furthermore, as difficult to reverse-engineer as they can)
3) Microsoft hasn't attempted to pollute web standards and encourage invalid code that breaks other browsers
4) The status of Linux gaming hasn't suffered as a consequence of Microsoft's tactics garnering it a near monopoly
Interesting concepts, there.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
Sorry but your friend working on Longhorn is hardly unbiased isn't he? So there are things that MS won't budge on heh? Well they are about to get the lesson in sovereign nations. I doubt very much that MS will take their ball and go home and right off a market of 400 million people.
Additionally, it is within the scope for them, should MSFT refuse to comply, to take those fines and use them to replace all software and OS on all computers in schools, universities, and government with open source competitors.
After all, what's fair for the gander is fair for the fois gras.
[caveat - I own shares of MSFT, Nokia, and RHAT and thus can't make up my mind if this is good or bad]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"What would be fair is if microsoft just let the vendor decide which OS they want to ship for which proportion of their PCs. Microsoft is pointing a gun at the PC vendors heads and telling them what to sell."
No, Microsoft is offereing them terms in a free market. It has nothing to do with physical coercion. Either party is free to walk away from the table.
"Microsoft is a bully to everyone it deals with, and it's time that the bully is dealt with by those who have the power to do it."
Now these people you speak of have real guns, and are using them to deprive MS executives of real liberties. Who is the real bully?
Vote for Pedro
A STATE monopoly on socially sensible matters (healthcare, public transport in some areas, etc) can be good, especially to keep costs down, since a state owned company only has to try to break even.
(it's also normally highly inefficent, though)
A PRIVATE monopoly is just wrong, especially if you consider yourself a capitalist (what do they teach in economics courses in high school in your parts??)
and btw: which one has a medical/healthcare assistance average status only slightly better than developing counties? Non-monopolistic USA or EU countries? Dont't be silly...
Ciao, Renato
Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.
And $5 million a day is chump change for Microsoft. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start looking at Microsoft's financial statements.
I bet they spend more than that on toilet paper for company restrooms.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I acknowledge your input and reiterate that Microsoft is clearly an enemy to the computing world. But how does requiring a "Reduced Media Edition" help with the above-stated problem? It just scales back what they offer with the OS, when as far as I can tell, most of the trust/monopoly complaints are about the operating system itself (integration of IE with the OS, breaking competitors software).
In order to level the playing field for software development, the Windows OS must be standardized somehow (that is, Microsoft cannot intentionally make changes for the purpose of squashing to competition). How does the action of the EU actually reduce Microsoft's monolithic stature?
Furthermore, is such a steep monetary fine justified for the damage that Microsoft actually causes to its competitors? Notice that many of the apps which challenge MS products (Mozilla, Opera, Winamp, VLC) are available free of charge. Furthermore, the implicit goal of many of these (especially the Open Source projects - think Firefox) is to destroy Microsoft's market share in each respective category. So Microsoft's damage to the computing community cannot be measured so easily in pounds and pence. So why is the EU charging them so much money? Use your imagination.
Yes, Microsoft is involved in "unfair" business practices. But nailing them for IE and Windows Media Player is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion.
4) The status of Linux gaming hasn't suffered as a consequence of Microsoft's tactics garnering it a near monopoly
Linux gaming? You might have a valid point with the other ideas but this one is like saying nintendo is making mac gaming impossible... It's not that fact that MS is trying to monopolize desktop gaming, it's the fact that linux isn't really much of a gaming OS and doesn't have much of a desktop presence. It's market share and not MS that keeps Linux from having many games.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Good plan. While I'm at it, I'm going to go back in to the end of the 19th century/early 20th century and establish a steel company, an oil company, and a railroad company. After all, monopolies don't *really* use their dominating position to force rivals out of the market through cheap tactics. Carnegie, Rockafeller, and Pullman just simply got lucky because nobody wanted to buy the products/services that their competitors tried to sell for half the price, eh?
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
doesn't have much of a desktop presence
Which is what I said, although I could have worded it better (by continuing on with "...on the desktop market).
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
Then I'll use my laptop to write up my resume and save it in the industry standard document format. I'll then apply for a position at all the companies whose websites are accessible with a standards compliant browser.
Send your resume to Amazon, where we use linux based crap all over. Then celebrate your personal victory by getting out of the damn house and enjoying the wonderful greenery that results from all the rain we get.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What changes reducing the use of Microsoft products would make in them is another question altogether, and there are better reasons for controlling MS' behaviour than to gain the income from fines.
Disclaimer: I'm typing this from Firefox on Windows 2K (I have a few apps specific to work that won't run under WINE, and I don't have the skill to get them running...yet), while VNCing into my linux (Gentoo..yay) development server and SSHing into my MacOS X server, all just trying to do my job as best I can. So I'm running an MS product, but I'm running Win2K because I find XP ridiculous.
I hate MS as much as the next guy. I'm also a US citizen (just FYI). Quite frankly, I don't see any good coming from this. MS can easily afford the fine. 5% of daily sales may as well be a Euro to MS. And if there's one thing I've learned, its that corporations don't pay these fines. Their customers do. MS won't blink at increasing their costs to cover the fine and maintain profit margins. They can do this because they are a MONOPOLY! For the fine to be meaningful, I think it has to be on the order of 90%. I'm sure they'd find a way to unbundle real quickly then. Look at tobacco companies in the US. They didn't even consider changing their practices until the lawsuits started costing them billions per fiscal quarter.
I could be wrong. But I truly believe those rat bastards will find a way to pass the costs onto the consumer.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
What the hell are you talking about? That's like saying "don't blame a murderer, blame the murder." Linux isn't the one doing stuff illegal here.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
True, but if it weren't for Microsoft, Linux would have a much larger market share, thus more games. And no, it is not like Nintendo-Mac at all, Nintendo and Mac are made for doing entirely things, the same is not true for Windows and some distros of Linux.
Except that they are. Coercion doesn't require them to put a gun to your head to be coercion.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
" A STATE monopoly on socially sensible matters (healthcare, public transport in some areas, etc) can be good, especially to keep costs down, since a state owned company only has to try to break even."
It can be good, unless your a doctor. Then your stuck with whatever the govt. decides your worth paying.
"and btw: which one has a medical/healthcare assistance average status only slightly better than developing counties? Non-monopolistic USA or EU countries? Dont't be silly..."
Making doctors govt slaves isn't my idea of a good solution to the problem, comrade.
Vote for Pedro
... Commies, go hate them.
Keep up, dude, we're supposed to be hating terrorists this week.
Engsoc has always been at war with terrorists.
Microsoft Shall Die!!! (We wish)
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
A browser monopoly is not foolish at all. It means that if Microsoft has the top browser, they also control the internet. I don't want MS to control the internet... it is commercialized enough already. Look at how many bad/annoying/non-comforming web sites came about because of using IE-only quirky programming. Might be unfair to MS, if you look at it that way. I say it's completely fair to the end user, and in my book, that's all that counts.
Meh.
"it's the fact that linux isn't really much of a gaming OS"
What makes an OS a gaming OS? What needs to be changed in GNU/Linux to make it a gaming OS? I can't think of anything specific about the OS that would prevent it from succeeding as a gaming OS. (of course I'm one of those old fogies that doesn't consider web browsers and media players to be a part of the OS, so YMMV)
"It's market share and not MS that keeps Linux from having many games"
Market share doesn't keep the WWW inaccessible in a world of IE. Market share doesn't prevent me from filling my Audi at the same gas station you fill your Excursion. Market share doesn't keep me from running gcc on any system I choose.
What keeps games from Linux is DirectX.
Microsoft sabotaged OpenGL (they were part of the initial standardization group) to push its Direct3d and other associated proprietary libraries.
If game developers weren't locked in DirectX and standard libraries for low-level hardware interaction were nurtured instead of aborted, most games would be multiplatform. As it is, progress on this has been set back 10 years.
"If anything the Government should not have any, and I mean ANY say in any of it, either way. They should not be allowed to give Microsoft anything special, nor should they hold them for being a crappy business. Let the free-market decide."
Well, considering that it was the government having a say in it in the first place that got them the copyrights to their code, your theory falls flat right from the start.
Now, if you really mean that the government should have no say in it, then you are calling for the end of copyrights. Is that indeed what you are doing?
In any event, the government will at least have a say in any event in that they are a customer or potential customer.
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
America NEEDS to be liberated !!!
Meh.
What makes an OS a gaming OS?
ease of use ; Driver support for various video cards, game pads, monitors, and other peripherals; and support from game studios.
What needs to be changed in GNU/Linux to make it a gaming OS?
Make installing a game requires less then 3 hours, ensure that the default configuration can run on most systems without reconfiguration. Include all nessacary libraries with every game. Improve driver support, win over game developers.
I can't think of anything specific about the OS that would prevent it from succeeding as a gaming OS.
The need to re-compile and configure for most installations is a huge problem. The lack of driver support from hardware vendors as well. The fact that linux is not uniform makes it even more of a pain in the ass to make a bug free game for. Not onyl do you have hardware variation, you now have to account for subtle software differences too.
(of course I'm one of those old fogies that doesn't consider web browsers and media players to be a part of the OS, so YMMV)
I didn'ts mention any of that. only his point about games.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"It's a give and take: the state also acts as "collectivists" when they allows such things as incorporation: which allows individual investors to get off the hook for paying out for failed business ventures.
It also supports copyrights, patents, and other such interferances in the free market, in order to promote the collective good.
Why, when a corporation is being punished for knowingly violating anti-trust laws (laws made to protect the market, and the public good), are you suddenly upset?
Microsoft probably wouldn't even exist in the first place without government protections in the form of copyright monopolies and laws to support incorporation. Microsoft willfully breaks the law; but heartily sues anyone who does the same. How is that fair?"
Hear! Hear!
Mod this baby all the way up to 11. (Yes indeed, these go to 11, film at 11.)
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
gives a damn?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
full of toilet paper, that comes out to 17 Libraries of Congress of toilet paper per day.
The constitution vote went 'No' in France, and it will do the same in the Netherlands.
We can hope this now means the dried husk of 'EU' bureaucrats will blow away in the next high wind.
How odd, an AC poster that signs his posts with his real name.
The 2 AC responses to the grandparent have reminded me *why* I've been modding down AC posts in my preferences for so long that I've forgotten when I first started doing it. After a month of experimentation, its time to return to old habits it seems. I know I'll miss the occasional gem, but having to wade through this kind of crud to find that gem just isn't worth it anymore.
ummm not enough M$ jobs is EU to make them fold...Eu will not and should not back down and bush needs to take a look at whats going on in the EU. In the US, we need several things badly right now..1) patent reform 2) A complete overhaul of the FCC 3) Federally subsidised tax breaks for companies who create jobs in the technical & computer fields so we can innovate beyond the world once again. I would love to see more and more public figures supporting Open source.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
and in further news Microsoft's sales in Europe fall 10%.
Work that one out fuckwit
No but, yeah but, no but...
> Making doctors govt slaves
HAH! You evidently aren't familiar with this whole "working for the government" lark.
It's more a case of job security, enjoying being in a govt. mandated monopoly (your market is always there, and you don't face growing competition), and the wages (depending on the country) range from reasonable to "as absurd as in a free market".
Here in Ireland of course, we have the worst situation, a hideous mish-mash of free-marketism of the overboard US type, and socialism of the "we didn't bother checking how other countries do it, lets make it up out of our heads, or pay some friends lots of money to think about it".
On the plus side, we get a ludicrous amount of foreign investment (thanks to the only 10-12.5% corporation tax), have pots of money and loads of jobs (not that you aren't screwed if you're in the marginalised 10% that's either in the 4% unemployed, or the minimum wage/high costs bracket).
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
"Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap."
Is that so. Can you kindly point me to a location in Belgium where I can buy a portable without Windows license (and Azerty be keyboard)? Where can I buy a branded PC without Windows on it, where can I buy a branded server without it?
Even the few brands that do offer PC's without OS pay one license to MS for that product and most of the time, the consumer does too.
What is the difference in this case? MS is their business practices while Linux is a community which contains private individuals and companies.
If RedHat pulled something similar off, you can bash them, chances are the community will be bashing them first.
You are mixing things up.
Some countries here in the EU have/had government monopolies on services that are crucial to the public.
This includes hospitals, train transport etc.
These monopolies are not to private companies. The institutes involved are required to perform a public service, they are not intended to make profits and the price of their products/services are deteremined by the government and could even be at a loss for certain categories of people.
" Europe has no right to levy a fine of that magnitude on an American company."
Why not? When MS decided to start selling their products in the EU, they knew the laws here. If they wanted to be held accountable by US laws only, they should sell in the US only.
I a Russian firm for example operates in the US, are they not bound by your laws?
There is no trade-war, these laws existed when trade agreements with the US where drawn up.
BTW, you do know the MS is a convited monopolist in the US too?
"Microsoft's European software prices are expected to increase by 5-7% this week.."
I would love this. See how quickly Linux grows in the EU.
In this case, MS has been trying to use its desktop monopoly to break into multimedia and kickstart a monopoly using the WMV and WMA formats by bundling vector (WMP) on Windows. MS was told to stop that illegal, anti-freemarket activity and ship a version of Windows not locked into WMV or WMA.
That version is called now XP Home Edition N (MS tried to call it Reduced Media Edition) and it is broken. Of course, Windows Media Player, the vector to spread WMA and WMV, is absent as required by the court. But MS has also removed the rest of the libraries needed for other media players to use Windows. That in itself is contempt.
The 5% fine is too small. MS has dragged on this case for years, each day hurts competition and the free market. Now MS is dragging on the punishment. The strategy is if it is able to wait long enough the problem goes away on its own.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
> Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.
? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN &guiLanguage=en
The ruling states "The Commission has the power to force changes in company behaviour and to impose financial penalties for antitrust violations of up to 10% of their annual turnover worldwide."
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do
This fine is the most ridiculus claim I have heard in a while. If "Windows" media player can no longer be given for FREE when you buy/install windows, then why should they stop there? Why not get rid of windows taskbar, because there are alternative task bars available. Then you'll need to get rid of your wallpaper and desktop so companies can compete in that sector.
The US economy and currency is dropping like a rock, the US is hated wordwide, and Microsoft software is poorly coded bloatware to start with.
Uhh, Its an obviously auto-generated text, you are talking to a machine.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Pitchforks? Come on, Redmond is in the USA where you can get flamethrowers from vending machines! We'll just fly there and stock up on the way to Redmond.
Does anyone know whether any supermarket chain currently has subtactical nukes on sale?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I refer to cases where France ("Chirac") Germany and other rivals claim UN authority trumps US sovereignty.
What? When did either of those countries ever claim that? Please give me some kind of reference. Wasn't the argument more about what trumps Iraq's sovereignty?
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Except doctors are paid very well, and they can keep a share of private visits at whatever cost they choose. And people who can afford it often choose to pay more for private assistance because in general you are treated better (not on the medical side, actually, but in terms of accomodation and such ancillary services).
Doctors are not forced to work for the national health service, either, but they choose to, cause the pay is good and very safe.
Besides, enjoy your freedom to bleed to death while the E.R. doctors try to decide if your insurance will pay the costs...
Ciao, Renato
Stop off in Seattle and you can pick up a certified organic implosion-type bomb with Pu derived only from ecologically sound mining practices, and explosive lenses with low VOC content and no environmental oestrogens!
walmart
I am Spartacus
There are no international treaties forbidding the EU from enforcing its trade laws.
Me (Blog)
Doctors are paid adaquately in most European countries.
Me (Blog)