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"

9 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Why the complaints? by liliafan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Microsoft 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)
    1. Re:Why the complaints? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The interaction only goes one way. And strangely, few if any complaints about that from the vendors whose territory they trample.

      Seems all of their own interoperability is for the purpose of migration [to Windows], not for peaceful cohabitation in a mixed computing environment.

    2. Re:Why the complaints? by Sassinak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because, as you just pointed out... Ford doesn't own the entire market. If you change to Chevy, or GM, or any other vehicle, you loose nothing. (Except for any backlog of parts and knowledge specific to the product that you may have). And that is a cost that you will have to decide is worth it or not.

      Ford does not (and can't really) use its leverage to make the auto parts manufactures to produce only parts for them and not anyone else.

      Ford can't basically tell you... "Drive us, or you will have to walk".

      If company A switches from windows to something else, (assuming they will unhook the leash to do so... stockholm syndrome comes to mind.), depending on their industry, they may not be able to function... this is not entirely due to the classic arguement of "no applications"..

      The long and short of it is that Micro$haft is being "singled out" (as you say) because of what they have done in the industry, not their size. You don't cage the gorilla for being 500lbs; but if he smacks everything that comes within 50 feet to death, and prevents any little gorillas from being born... I'm pretty sure you want a wall between him and you.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  2. Wrong argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wrong argument by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW.

      I wish we could punish people who spout insincere rhetoric like this by treating them as if they were being honest.

      Microsoft: "We shouldn't be punished for becoming successful."
      EU: "Okay, we agree to those terms, appeal over."
      [A month goes by.]
      Microsoft: "Why are you forcing us to comply with the original judgement?"
      EU: "Why wouldn't we? That wasn't a punishment for being successful, that was a punishment for being anticompetitive."
      Microsoft: "We appeal!"
      EU: "You already had your appeal, we agreed to your terms, remember?"

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  3. Ah, I see! by gowen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems
    Its non-Microsoft client operating systems that they have the problem with. You can have your slice of server space, but if your alternative OS's try and pick up market share for desktop computers, then they'll do everything they can to stop you.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  4. Re:What IP rights ? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Communications protocols. MS claims it's their IP and they don't have to share it (as in publicly document it). But they also claim they interoperate. They think no one is smart enough to see the contradiction.

  5. Re:Yeah. by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:market success by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.