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)
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.
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.
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.
The best thing is both blaster and slammer had fixes released well before the worms hit.
It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.
And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.
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.
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.
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."
It is, at least partially. Microsoft had (have?) a habit of releasing 'new features' with security patches. This meant that the security patches needed careful testing before deployment, since the new features often came free with new bugs that could break existing software. For most other operating systems, the security updates are just that; security updates. If you install a security update for OS X/FreeBSD/whatever, the only things that it should break are programs that made use of the insecurity that is fixed (and you probably want these to break, rather than being exploited, anyway). On Windows, it can be a game of Russian Roulette to patch a running server.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, but Linux and MacOS X have had to be patched for other reasons, some serious, some not. Just like Windows.
The damn SQL worm had a fix for I believe six full months before the worm hit. Not to mention, if the administrators of said SQL boxes followed STANDARD SECURITY PRACTICES, the worm would have had no impact at all.
There are plenty of holes in Linux and MacOS X too, some of them in browsers, some of them in other places, some of them critical, some of them not so critical. Just what point was it you were trying to make...
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
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
No, it is YOU who seem to neglect the fact that it's not the simple act of bundling apps that is the problem. It's bundling apps which could leverage *your existing monopoly status* into another area. Last time I checked, Apple has not been tried and found to hold such status, therfore they are NOT breaking any rules by bundling whatever the hell they want.
:/
"Forcing Microsoft to open it's closed source code, and help it's competitors, and not doing the same thing for every other software development firm, is wrong."
Wow, how very WRONG are you on this one? They *don't want* the source code. They told MS they don't want it, they don't need it, it's not the right answer. Sourcecode!=APIs
"OMG MS 'r bad!"
Sorry to say, but you really are pushing "noob speak" on the wrong person.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?