Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the fighting-the-old-country dept.

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"

3 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 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.