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)
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?
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.
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?)
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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."
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
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