Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?
A lot of people don't agree with the EU anti-trust, personally I think the EU is succeeding where the US anti-trust cases failed, they are actually punishing M$, hopefully, Microsoft will learn a lesson this time around.....I doubt they will though.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Slammer and Blaster will hammer Sun and Linux servers just as much as Windows servers when installed on a Windows machine! :)
Seriously, though....wasn't it server<->desktop protocols that the EU wanted, rather than server<->server?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision"
Well duh.
I'm sorry but MS calls what the do interoperability? It's more like "make the other guy make it work and then break it occasonaly" honestly.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Sure, they were designed to interoperate. They just weren't documented. Or not documented well.
Anything can interoperate with any other as long as the protocols are documented and those documents are made available.
Developers: We can use your help.
I can't imagine Microsoft appealing to anyone... ;)
We need open standards. We need interoperability. However, closed standards, proprietary formats, and DRM all serve to preserve marketshare by those owning the technology and serve to lock out any competition. Bid on a project and you can propose vendor A version 2000 or vendor A version 2003 or vendora A version XP.... Now that is competition, right?
no other source gives you this much (useless)information
Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace
:-)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society. If they don't want to be treated as criminals then they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
They may be attempting to appeal that decision, however for the fact remains that it's not their success that has them up in the dock, it's their illegal behaviour.
Specifically for abusing their monopoly position to the detriment of the market - adminttedly the monoply does show they were successful but that entire argument is a fallacy.
the Commission's demands threaten Microsoft's intellectual-property rights.
What intellectual property rights ? The EU Commision didn't ask for the source code (copyright), and software patents have no legal value in Europe...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Inventing it? Like Al Gore "invented" the Internet? I think Redmond has confused "stealing and obfuscating" with "inventing."
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
When will Microsoft be defeated by the EU?
* From 1 to 6 months
* From 6 months to a year
* From 1 to 2 years
* From 2 and 5 years
* More than 5 years
* When CowboyNeal says it will
Place your bets, gentlemen. Place your bets.
You are correct. Microsoft doesn't want to be penalized for being successful. But all EU companies are penalized for being successful in the form of overbearing taxation and unbalanced labor laws ( a la france). Why does MS expect to be treated any differently from the EU?
MS' idea of 'interoperate' is 'works when such functionality suits us, and not a moment before or after'. Personally, I hope the EU does what the U.S. Gummit should have done in the first place...
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
EXACTLY. They are "successful" at the expense of the public which makes them harmful.
Cockroaches are "successful." Rats are "successful." Microsoft is "successful."
(wasn't that clever of me to associate cockroaches and rats with microsoft?)
they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society
Wrong again. Last I checked, heads of the EU didn't purchase jewels for jewel thieves or software from software pirates. However, they do purchase software and solutions from Microsoft. If they are the moral idealogues you claim them to be they should stop purchasing Microsoft software. Now.
They do see Microsoft as a contributing member of society. Overwhelmingly so. That's why they want things opened up, to contribute more, and on a different level (contribute not just products but knowlege.)
That, and, the big guy will always be the biggest target, be it by the little guy or the big government. A cool 2 million a day (iirc) in fines is nothing to scoff at for the EU. Probably finances a lot of hookers...
"Nothing in the file shows that the communication protocols in relation to which Microsoft will have to disclose specifications contain innovations"
IMHO Microsoft are just dragging this out as long as possible hoping the EU will get fed up.
If Microsoft is appealing on flagarantly fraudulant grounds that lie somewhere between making false statements to a court of law, deceptive advertising, and wilful abuse of the appeals system, then the EU should seriously examine if the law would allow them to increase the fine. Doubling it would seem suitable.
This needs to be settled, once and for all, in a way that is fair but decisive.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What objective standard do you intend to use? How much is 'too much'? Who gets to decide?
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players? I think they're hitting way more home runs than they need to.
If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line for government or anyone to step in because 'success' has been too great.
At least with the oil companies example, people can (falsely) argue that gas is 'owned by everyone' and therefore has a 'public responsibility'. With your arguement, the ideas of Microsoft and their labor is 'owned by everybody' and therefore subject to limiting restrictions as someone sees fit.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Not just Microsoft. Change the subject and pretend it was the subject all along. I've had a lot of conversations where I've had this done to me. Then there's the whole "Wondering why you're so upset for" bit, done here as "We shouldn't be penalized for being successful".
Just who decides when a company is successful enough? You? People just like you? And, where is the incentive for starting a company if some group can say "You're too successful, we're bringing you down!" ? I'm all for ethical business practices, but placing artificial constraints on the success of a business strikes me as extreme-left punishment for simply being the alpha-business in a particular industry.
Microsoft uses Ireland as a base to filter billions of dollars every year (Through a wholly owned obscure subsidiary), through a solicitors office in Dublin. That office controls all license revenue from Asia, Europe and Africa. On average they contribute $50 per person per year to Irish economy, with our low corporation tax rates. The EU has FULL legislative power over this, what represents a huge chunk, if not more than 50% of MSFT's business, so unlike South Korea, Microsoft could not just leave (like they threatened to move to Canada), as most of their Intellectual Property rights are based here in Ireland. The E.U. probably holds the most power over Microsoft then any legislator in the world, its all whether they are bman enough to make Microsoft pay for their crimes.....
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line for government or anyone to step in because 'success' has been too great.
The government might well decide to have a look at your business practices... If you owned a farm and attempted to buy out, intimidate, and crush your rival farmers, if you then locked down the distribution market with illegal contracts to make it very difficult for competitors to gain a foothold. Just as Microsoft has done in the software market.
A perfectly free market would be a perfectly amoral market.
See here where you tried to claim ownership of TCP/IP hrough the tried and
tested method of co-mingling functionality er
No. You should be penalized for destroying everyone else's corn to make yours more valuable.
But that's just the EU's way of showing it's displeasure that it's not an European company in that position, they have no other way of flexing anything other than trying to make a big stink about the evil American Microsoft...
But Microsoft are NOT in trouble for being successful - they're in trouble for HOW they achieved their success. Remember, they're a convicted illegal monopolist. They have used market domination in one field to unfairly leverage dominance in others, at the total expense of innovation and consumer benefit.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
That really is fantastic (in both senses). Microsoft have seriously outdone themselves with that one. An upside-down toilet would be technologically innovative and about as much use as one of their communication protocols. At least it made me smile.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
There's an objective standard of market concentration. It was used by the U. S. Department of Justice to enforce antitrust laws until Bush came in.
I think they're making way more money than they need to. Just like gas companies. Being successful
doesn't make it right.
Comments like yours are the ones that the 'other side' love. Someone who doesn't have the slightest
grasp as to what is going on and makes comments that lead everyone else to believe that you don't have
a grasp on capitalism. The simple fact that a company makes a lot of money doesn't make them bad or
mean that restrictions should be placed on them. The company makes what the market permits, supply
and demand. It's not up to you to say 'they are making too much money', there's no such thing as too
much money (legally).
You're probably one of those people that think the rich should be taxed to death for the simple fact
that they have more money. "You make 1 million dollars a year.. I think we should tax you to death so
you only take on 50k a year!... that is fair in my warped concept of fair".
* Now, to be fair... you may very well have grasp on the facts, in fact I hope you do. Your comment
alone is what I find rediculous, however you'll prolly get mod'd up as 'insightful' based on this
crowd.
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft's sure not appealing to me!
get whipped (you know you like it)
You are another that is side stepping the issue with Microsoft. You can spout your version of capatalist/free-market retoric that grounds itself in the theories of capatalist/free-market economics and ignores the need for certain restraints to make those theories work. Your brand of economics endorses bullying and lawlessness as admirable qualities. Microsoft's success is rooted in immoral, unethical, and even illegal practices. Just because they are "successful" does not justify them being allowed to do what they please. Following your line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, organized crime should be lauded for their "success".
"Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace."
No, you shouldn't be penalized for being successful; you should be penalized for using your monpoly power to extend the reach of your products. You should be penalized for violating various antitrust laws in various countries.
Penalized is not an American word. Both forms are acceptable in Britain, the EU, or anywhere else. Look it up in the OED. (I'm a Brit by the way).
1. They have integrated IE so tight into Windows that removing it will cause Windows to break down.
Who gives a duck? Netscape is dead anyway.
2. They charge more than necessary for their products.
No problem, a coupon day or a few vouchers will be enough to clean this.
3. They abuse their market position and control the info on how to use the APIs to fight competition off.
Well, just document the APIs.
MS: Nah, that's a lot of work. Here is the source code, we hope it will give competitors a better idea than thousands of manual pages on how to improve interoperability with our applications. However, they will not be able to use this information without licensing it from us first.
Is there a way to get something from MS without having to pay twice for it?
crewing with those who wish to communicate with your operating system via your protocols is all part of INNOVATION! Abusing your monopoly position is all part of INNOVATION! Poor long suffering Microsoft, the Jesus of Software, so maligned by so many.
I don't think your, Jesus analogy will hold because Jesus' disciples were men of peace and unlike some of the people at Microsoft they would never have thrown chairs at the faithful.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
the eu just loves to take forever, that's part of what makes its gravytrain so appealing to so many that work within it.
The gist of the original comment is that too much success is bad, and behind every great fortune there is a great crime, therefore too much success=criminal activity and 'the people' should punish the successful company. Sorry, I don't buy into that theory. Businesses are free, within the confines of the law, to be as brutal as they need to be in order to out-compete their competition.
One of the 'features' of capitalism is that, to vastly oversimplify it, rich people become richer and poor people become poorer. Precisely the same applies to companies. If you control a majority of a market, you can leverage that control to increase your majority to close to 100%, since whatever you decide automatically becomes the industry standard if you control the industry. This is exactly what Microsoft have been doing. It is a fundamental problem with a capitalist, company-based system; but since it seems to be the best system we have, it is thus desiarable - indeed, necessary - to limit the problem. That is the purpose of antimonoply legislation.
So you are not "punishing people from being good", you are preventing them from leveraging the position they acheived by being "good" to stifle the market. All power corrupts.
To use your farm analogy, if you had a "bumper crop", you would not be penalised; not would you if you had ten farmers working cooperatively. But if you ended up owning the vast majority of all farms in the world, and then used that advantage to try to prevent smaller, independant farms from continuing business (e.g. by refusing to sell to anyone who does not sign exclusive deals to buy only from you - which they have to since, as you own the majorit of the market, they cannot get the grain they need from only the independant farmers) then I think intervention would be entirely justified.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
I agree. Success and ethics are not one and the same. Also keep in mind America is NOT a free market economy in any sense of the word. Government regulations protect businesses to an incredible degree these days, in order to counter balance that they MUST step in when a company over steps their bounds.
Others have said it I will re-iterate, Microsoft knew the rules, they are not secret, and they willingly and blatantly broke them. They bought politicians (I witnessed this first hand working on a campaign so don't tell me it did not happen) in order to reduce/eliminate their US anti-trust lawsuit penalties and it worked. That is UNETHICAL and NOT free-market behavior. That is ILLIGAL and IMMORAL. They SHOULD be punished and I for one am glad the EU seems to have the balls to do what the US could not.
Microsoft makes baby Jesus cry....
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good.
They're not punishing them for being good. They're punishing them for not allowing interoperability with their monopoly platform, thereby preventing competing alternatives. When the world's computers are over 90% Microsoft-controlled, that changes things.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - how would I get new programs? What if I didn't know how to get other programs? What If I just wanted to use WMA and IE?
Now, Microsoft has used terrible methods of making themselves the best. They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor. But there are two things to remember here: Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing, Microsoft's just better at it; and Microsoft is rarely on trial for being unscrupulous (most of it is illegal, but not all).
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
How many Microsoft fanbois are going to use the strawman argument that Microsoft is being "punished for being successful?"
They're not being punished for being successful. The EU didn't say, "Hmm, Microsoft is being successful, let's fine them for that."
The issue is the lack of interoperability documentation with their monopoly platform, which prevents competition from Microsoft's own server products, furthering Microsoft's monopoly. There are laws against that because it's the antithesis of a free market.
"Sufferin' succotash."
So you're totally okay with one company controlling nearly all computers, and that company also selling server software for that monopoly platform, and then not documenting that platform's APIs properly for other people to compete? That's a monopoly furthering a monopoly.
You're essentially defending, for instance, Microsoft's refusal to document the SMB protocol, requiring packet sniffing for people to interoperate with it. You're defending a lot of behavior that is illegal under antitrust laws.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
It is very disturbing that you think that the need to browse the web and play media files by definition means a computer must have IE and WMP.
It's not about a company shipping Windows without IE or WMP. It's about a computer company being able to ship Windows with Firefox and iTunes.
Your message has shown just how badly needed the EU case really is, because Microsoft has managed to befuddle people just like you into thinking a choice that is not Microsoft is no choice at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
Boy, you ass-troturfers are out in force today, posting crap like "Just who decides when a company is successful enough?" when Microsoft isn't (as has been pointed out many times by other posters) being punished for being sucessful, you're (yes, your company) being punished for breaking the law.
/. maybe Access and Foxpro wouldn't be making me threaten to steal an airplane and bomb Redmond. God DAMN but you people write shit software.
This is a nerd site, we're not so stupid that we can't see through you.
And these stupid, uninsightful posts are being moderated "+5, insightful."
Would you jackasses please get back to work? If you didn't spend all day astroturfing
everybody becomes richer under capitalism. The rich just slightly faster. If you doubt that, look at the kind of shit happening where the state rules supreme.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
please define what monopoly means to you. Everybody seems to be entitled to make up what words mean these days, I just want to be certain.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Rant
Your argument is absolutely flawed. You're saying capitalism isn't flawed because totalierians make a lot of money. Lets stick up this man. He's made of straw. He's get a big t-shirt called totaliterian. He's baddddddd. He's got horns on his head. Lets burn him and be glad we're not him.
Analysis
Now on to the real analysis, you are saying the rich are just getting richer over the poor. In relative terms, lets say the rich (those that have $ to invest) are investing with returns of 10%. Cut off inflation, lets say 4% for arguments sake. That leaves the rich guy making 6% wealth increase over time. The poor guy who is 'just subsisting' makes 4% off inflation over the same period so they're wealth improvement at 0% increase over the period.
(Note: Yes, no taxation numbers were calculated in this. If you really want to prove the disparity increase is less, then use real-world numbers on inflation/investment returns as well. Just assume taxes were calculated before the investment numbers)
So, the average rate of return for rich/poor over a year is 6%:0% If in 17 years of that average (10% investment, 4% inflation) growth, the rich guy index has grown 2:1, while the poor-guy index has grown 1:1 making the disparity between the two twice as dramatic as it was 17 years ago.
Proportionately, the rich get richer and the poor stay the same. Inflation may provide some added benefit to the poor, but it doesn't 'balance' the rich equation.
Don't get me started on the whole 'ownership society' concept.
Bye!
please define what monopoly means to you. Everybody seems to be entitled to make up what words mean these days, I just want to be certain.
How about reading up on the landmark ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson:
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players?
Absolutely right.
The crime here is the means by which success is achieved. In other words: We would ban the New York Yankees if it turned out they only win because they're all doping as hell.
Antitrust law is like doping rules: There are things you can do that make you stronger and faster, but they're not allowed because both sports and free markets only work if the competition is fair.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is exactly the problem. They said:
MS Windows server ===== works with ======> non-MS server OS
They did not say
non-MS OS ====== works with ========> MS Windows server
...and that is exactly the problem that they are being sued for
Don't be fooled by the doublespeak.- Paul
Except that many vendors SHIP the computer with alternate players, configurations, browsers, and such.
Great, but the original point was that the user needs a computer with a browser and a media player. Why are you blinded into thinking windows MUST ship with IE and WMP - even if other choices are also shipped? Why is the choice NOT to ship with that pair just as valid as shipping with Firefox and iTunes?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My only problem with your comment is that rats (domesticated ones at least) are very intelligent, resourceful, and cute. Not the revolting scum that Microsoft has let itself become. They're more on the order of Tapeworms, parasitic, souless beings with only the purpose to feed off you for its own survival.
I happen to know of a certain lab at Microsoft. In this lab they try to find ways to:
a) Configure Windows boxes in ways which BREAK Linux and other Open Source os's interoperability.
b) Create subtle changes to Windows protocols which keep Windows boxes moving fast, but slow down things like Samba.
They are not friends of Open Source.
Google is being very successful, but they haven't been assholes about it, so people in general don't have their underwear all wadded up trying to knock Google down a couple of notches.
But Microsoft has acted like one major bully. On one hand, they use the law (or whatever other means they can that are "legal" to beat their competitors/perceived enemies down. When the tables are finally turned on them, they cry foul.
Imagine your school days, when the biggest prick in the school was the star player of one of the Big Sports (in the US, that would be football, basketball or baseball). He did what he wanted, essentially, and no one would/could stand up to him. Teachers realized how well-connected his parents were to the rest of the school administration, the teams were pretty successful and high-profile for the community, and his friends tended to be taken care of outside of school.
Finally, a student or teacher has enough of this dickhead, and he's failed in a class for cheating, the week before a major game. The coach (who is no fine specimen of civil humanity himself) appeals to the teacher to "change his mind", first casually, but as the teacher holds his ground, the pressure starts to get nasty. Initially, the school administrators support the teacher, until somewhere along the way a rumor is created that the teacher enjoys a few kinky activities in his spare time, or the kid starts dating the daughter of the head of the school board, or the principal is remined of the benefits he enjoys at the school could easily be taken away, anyways, you get the idea.
So a couple of days before the Big Game, the teacher finally relents and the dickhead's grade is reevaluated, and he barely passes and gets to play in the Big Game.
Or, for those who can remember that long ago, remember when BillG was busted in Bellevue one night for speeding, and the cop had the balls to write him up a ticket for not having proof of insurance? Guess what happened after that? The cop was fired a couple of months after for having a "poor work record". Funny thing was, he had been a cop for quite a few years, and up to then he'd had good job evaluations...
But at least BillG and SteveB aren't in the same league as Andrew Carnegie, Pullman, and others from that era. As far as we know, no one has directly died as the result of trying to throw the shit back onto Microsoft (well, except for that one guy who tried to fight Microsoft when they were arguing that NT4.0 had met some difficult NSA/NIST security classification that he'd worked successfully on for NT 3.51, when the wording of the specifications was clear that NT 4.0 should probably have been reevaluated...).
As much as I don't like Paul Allen right now as a vulture...venture... capitalist (selling off TechTV, running Portland Trailblazers into the ground far worse than George Argyros or Jeff Smulyan tried to do with the Mariners, or even the owner of teh LA Clippers had been doing to that team up until this season), if the stories about him around when he left Microsoft are true, then at least he still has *some* character in him. Can't say the same for BillG or SteveB.
As much as Microsoft as a corporation is just an amoral entity, its soul and basic character come from the people who run it, just like any other corporation.
The bigger question is why do they need to protect the protocols and APIs? _IF_ their product is superior, who would use anything else? If someone made software that could communicate with Windows clients/servers (Samba makes a good example), and Windows is still better, few if any people would use Samba, and hence it would cease to exist.
So the question becomes- are they artificially making themselves the only player when something better is likely to arrise. The answer is probably a yes.
Releasing protocols shouldn't hurt their market share if they're the top player and have the best product and keep their product good. Now if they don't have the best product, but are keeping players out of the market by hording information, then an anti-trust suit is in order... oh wait...
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
between Microsoft's repeated appeals of the EU's case and flouting the law as it wishes? In practical terms anyway. Pay $2M /day fine until you fix this. No. Pay $2M / day until you fix this. I'll see your refusal of our appeal andraise you a new one.
heh,... maybe look at previous trial arguments made by M$ lawyers defending the company from IP infringements. I'd say, they themselves have done an excessive amount of "discovery" on behalf of the EU or any other yahoo(not the TM) looking for something to do.
Side note: Could it be agreed upon? "...sometimes, in the software industry, ownership and or use of, in combination of legal language, offers a burdensome amount of coordination, to which, a possible solution is GPL'ed software."
and if so... then "Where do you want to go today?"
No, but when they can skew the market through governmental interference to maintain that cashflow into their coffers, *THAT* is where things start to be fucked up and the market is no longer free.
.0001% of what you made last year, Bill..."
As far as the tax thing goes, what cheeses most people is the perception that even though BillG may have a tax bill of $100,000, that there are ways he can offset or even negate a lot of that tax burden or create other ways so that that $100K is about 1% or 0% of his net income for the year.
BillG: "But I paid $100,000 to the US Treasury!"
TheRestOfUs: "But it was about
Or, like when I lived in Lake County, IL. My property tax bill on a $200,000 house was around $11,000/yr (Grayslake, IL). But a $1.5 million house in Lake Forest had property taxes of $15,000, and people in Lake Forest were bitching about how their schools didn't have enough $$$...
If I have to pay about 35-45%/yr in taxes, so should BillG.
Look to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604110 33758760 for what microsoft said in recent filings.
Reading those filings, Microsoft is saying "... but the users will have educated themselves on what our routines are doing, we shouldn't have to explain in OUR documentation."
The WWW was developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN (Europe)...
So is the computer you bought 10 years ago just as powerful as the one you could buy today for the same money?
Is the Model T an equal car to what you get today for the same work*hours?
Products are, generally speaking, improving at the same price or staying the same but decreasing in price. That's the part where everybody gets richer. Or if you prefer, the part where you don't need to worry about mass-starvation and can actually employ people to make up fancy wealth-distribution statistics.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Oh yes, I'm sure the EU officials will be very pleased to hear yet another attempt of the "The name's Microsoft, we are just a bunch of idiots who don't remember what they have been told last week, let alone last year" variety...
Go, Microsoft, go (har, har).
Walter.
Yeah, what you're explaining is inflation. If something costs more, prices inflate. If something costs less, it deflates. In general, when the average citizen pays more for basic living essentials, the economy infates hence the inflation number which deducts from the rich and subsists the poor. As explained in the last paragraph, the quality of living will go up for the poor, but they aren't proportionately in a better position as the rich are.
Bye!
The problem with the car anology isn't that it's about taking parts from one car and putting them into another, it's about two different cars using the same road. Just because Dodge makes the Ram truck doesn't mean that it's impossible to drive it on the same roads as a Honda Accord would. The actual inner workings of the vehicles may be different enough where you can't swap parts between them, but that doesn't mean you must drive down a special lane specific to your manufacturer while heading to work, or suffer dire consequences. The standards aren't in how the parts interact, but in how they work as a whole along side other systems.
I, posting anonymously, think that nobody should be allowed to earn more than X amount/ year. Be it 50K $ or 100k $, I don't care, but I think IT'S FAIR TO IMPOSE this restriction. I'm communist? Yes, maybe.
"its communication protocols are technologically innovative"
LOL
Sure it is. That's what we Europians do: wait for a company to become successfull and then we drag it through courts so we can get a cut of the money.
[/sarcasm]
And the US DOJ does the exact same thing! They wait for successful business men to emerge and then ambush their success!
[/sarcasm]
Does Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ring any bells?
Listen, liking microsoft or their products is not a bad thing, but there is a whole world out there wanting to make a living on software and microsoft is using their position to make sure that, when they are playing, only they have a chance. This is what the courts in the US, the EU and apparently South Korea have ruled against microsoft. You can paint it anyway you want so it will fit in to your point of view, but the fact that MS violates anti-trust laws has been decided in a court of law more than one time already throughout the world. The fine they are asked to pay can in no way be called extortion. Unless I can call the fine I am asked to pay for speeding extortion, because I disagree with the court's ruling.
Grandparent post knows nothing about how the law works. Details of why microsoft is treated like this can be found searching for "microsoft monopoly" on google. First result:
The landmark ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. This document describes accurately why microsoft is ruled a monopoly, addresses all the straw man arguements often posted of "microsoft not holding 100% market share, therefor is not a monopoly" and so on and so forth... If you have the time, read about it. It beats posting emotion driving posts that leads to flamewars, without posting any facts to back it up...
Followup: when I said GranParent post, I was thinking Original Post. Sorry about that. While I agree with the system the original post has in mind, this is simply not the case. What he is talking about is a political/economical change of how things work today. This is another discussion and not one microsoft should be judged by. Microsoft can and is judged by current laws and is found guilty...
Hopefully the net effect of the EU action is that, indeed, the Microsoft-only protocols and interop information will become freely available, something that will have a positive effect on the US market as well.
So quit complaining that he big bad EU is taking away the MS toys and get yourselves an administration that actively helps in creating a free market instead of working towards a new aristocracy of untouchables.
> And, where is the incentive for starting a company if some group can say "You're too successful, we're bringing you down!"
Boy, did you make this comment in the full intention of publishing the Dumbest Comment Of The Year?
Listen, there are about 0.00005% of all companies which earn more than $100000000/year (a possible very coarse definition of "too successful"). Yet most other companies that are not as wildly fortunate as those are doing just fine despite not earning such obscene amounts of money, thank you very much (you *can* persist as a company doing only $100k/year, after all).
Talking about a non-incentive to *even start* a company based on such a thing as "termination if too successful" is just very stupid.
How do you find The US's own Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling not fair, or not objective? Anti-trust laws exist, and microsoft's legal team knows about them. They are the ones that should have steared microsoft in another direction as they were gaining a monopoly position. If you don't want to believe it was microsoft's intention to break the law, then point at their lawyers for not protecting them from doing so. But microsoft's actions in repeatedly crossing the border of legality, dictates otherwise.
Anti-trust laws exist in Europe also and any EU bias can not interfere with justice. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if you have any, that this is the case. Such evidence would help microsoft's case alot also. It is not a question of unfair laws, as it is a question of over-sized corporations having the money and thus the power to ruin the market in their favor. The EU has the obligation to protect its market, as did the US a couple of years ago. I would be interested if you pointed out how exactly Judge Jackson was wrong in his rulings after you actually read them. I don't think you believe that He was also biased against microsoft, in any way, do you?
Until then, I can only reject your post as unfair and and misinformed.
I don't understand their argument. Anti-trust laws were not made to punish companies but to protect customers. It doesn't matter whether they meant to practically monopolize several industries (altough, who are they fooling, when they start doing things like making their own image editors because they want to own every software industry, they can't really go around saying they don't try to monopolize.) All that matters is whether or not they actually do it.
One of the three companies you mentioned is a monoply, the others are not.
Things are different for a monopoly, that's just the way it is. It's to protect other software makers and allow resellers of the product to make choices of thier own.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley