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"
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?
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)
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
See here where you tried to claim ownership of TCP/IP hrough the tried and
tested method of co-mingling functionality er
I just can't believe they are using the "shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace" argument.
I have a monopoly on product X, therefore I should be allowed to let it continue to inflict pain and damage. This is a defense?
Ohhh! Pay Dirt! A pair of half-eaten choco-pants!
Computer viruses are like AIDS, not colds - you have to do something stupid/irresponsible/etc to get them, just being exposed generally isn't a problem. I mean, it doesn't apply to 100% of viruses, but not opening that freeporn.html.exe attachment would prevent 99% of what's out there.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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
Its non-Microsoft client operating systems that they have the problem with.
Not really. MS has not been judged as having a monopoly in the server space (rightfully so, IMHO). It has been judged as having a monopoly in the desktop space. MS can tie its servers to anything it wants, except its desktop. Because it has a monopoly on the desktop it is illegal for them to tie anything to the desktop via bundling or secret protocols, because it gives them an unfair advantage in the new market (in this case servers). No one buys MS servers because they are stable, the multitask well, they are cheap, they are fast, or because they are innovative in and of themselves. Most admins will tell you how many MS servers they need compared to Linux ones and how they pretty much have to be dedicated to one application if you want them to work. People buy them because they are the only ones that work perfectly with the desktop OS for filesharing, authentication, logging, etc. via active directory and exchange.
Not providing full and complete documentation of all interactions with the desktop client is illegal and part of the punishment for that was that they were ordered to *gasp* stop doing it. Since that judgement has been handed down MS has done everything possible sans actually obeying the courts. They've appealed. They made numerous statements to the press. They've tried to pressure the EU using both the US government and other EU politician who are *ahem* consulting for them. They've released wrong and incomplete documentation. They've offered to license the source code in such a way that it will not actually remedy the situation.
This is what everyone expects of them because they are liars and untrustworthy criminals. This is a non-story.