Slashdot Mirror
New Blow for Microsoft in EU Row
twitter writes "The BBC is reporting on a stinging rebuke to Microsoft and their last defensive move in the EU anti-trust trials. Boston district court judge Mark Wolf accused Microsoft of trying to 'circumvent and undermine' European Law by requesting Novell documents. The story reminds us that last month, a federal judge in California denied subpoenas of Oracle and Sun for the same reasons, that a New York judge is currently considering a request against IBM and that Microsoft will be appealing their March 2004 conviction next week and may face millions of dollars of fines a day. New complaints were made just two months ago."
I know that Microsoft has a genuinely shady past in terms of business practices, but the "new charges" seem to be awfully weak to me. From TLFA "as well as the bundling of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Server with its desktop and server operating system respectively." Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player. At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is if they're not going to call MS on its real bad business practices and will instead throw questionable charges at Microsoft. That's an awfully weak case IMHOP.
*The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.*
Where's the new development ?
So close.
... subpoena to Novell would circumvent and undermine the law of the European Community concerning how a litigant may obtain third-party documents," judge Wolf said in his 12-page decision.
Anyway. FTFA:
"Enforcing Microsoft's
Now that was a profoundly unexplained statement. Does anyone know why this is the case?
+++ATH0
Even if their subpoena gets denied in Europe, they can later use the denial as a grounds for appeal (again, in Europe).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty years."
If only then the EU could funnel that money right back into local software companies and the open source infrastructure they base their products on. Oh wait, they will -- after beaucracy fees, of course! And oh wait again ... a lot of those local software companies also base their products on Microsoft's infrastructure ... blarg, so complex!
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
When the BBC runs it like this.
Especially with that pic of Bill.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
skeet skeet skeet
Whether the EU system of justice is fair or not, those are the tradeoffs of becoming a multinational corporation. Corporations have no loyalty to any particular country... they jump around mixing and matching whatever tax systems or legal obligations suit them the best. So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU system.
If you were on trial, would you want the assumption of innocence?
Yes, but in Microsoft's case you can make the assumption of guilty and be right.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Oops! Looks like you've been skipping your medications again. If you take them now, you may be rational by this time tomorrow. Or maybe not.
American courts convicted Microsoft of some fairly serious crimes. George W. and his cronies gave them a 'Get out of jail free' card.
Justice is a rare commodity anywhere in the world. Bah Humbug.
I really like this idea. It's useful in all stories, and it doesn't limit you from generating karma. Hmm...
So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU system.
For the same reasons we should be giving a damn about Microsoft in the first place. They're still a shady monopoly who got away with murder in the U.S. If MS can bully around the EU legal system, they have carte blanche to pretty much do whatever they damn well please.
Be happy. There's only one way this whole thing is going to end, and that's with the EU dropping or getting soft about the action against Microsoft. Some might say I'm being cynical, but does anyone seriously expect Microsoft to ever comply? The current fines don't seem to be enough, since Microsoft have chosen to just keep pretending they're fixing the problems instead of actually doing anything.
It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.
Wait, so now a fair justice system is a tradeoff and not an expectation we place on any governmental organization?
For that matter, why should we Americans give a damn about any injustice happening elsewhere in the world? Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?
Not a fair chance? By what standards? By the American constructs of justice, they might have been given the short end of the stick. But according to European constructs, they may have been given a fair shake. When Microsoft entered European markets, they accepted the implications of it. When you go over to another country you implicitly accept their constructs of justice and law. That is why the State Department won't step in and save you when screw up in another country. Arguing and asking that Microsoft be given a fair chance by American definitions is just like asking that someone who is in another country recieve an American trial even though the crime is committed in another country.
The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.
It is extremely myopic to argue that Microsoft, albeit an American company should be allowed to operate in Europe and at the same time only have to use American laws. If Microsoft is Europe and selling in Europe then Microsoft should be subject to the laws of that nation, regardless of whether or not Americans consider those laws to be just. It is not up to Microsoft to change those laws, and trying to use backhanded methods to compell what they want is not right.
If the constructs of justice are so maligent and repugnant, than why don't the Europeans change them? If Microsoft doesn't like the laws, then Microsoft can withdraw. No one is holding Microsoft in Europe; they are choosing to stay in Europe. And when their behavior is not to the liking of the European Union, it is not the place of an American to say that the EU is not treating them fairly, especially when most Americans, including myself, do not understand how Europe handles such issues. The world does not revolve around America, and American's need to respect the laws of another country, even when we percieve them to be unfair by our standards.
Now I realize that everyone is going to flame me about China, Iran and other countries that violate human rights. But this post is not referring to human rights. That is a whole different story. This is just about the social constructs of justice.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
It's refreshing to see that Microsoft's legal strategy of 'displace and distend' is finally running out of gas. Stretching out and distorting legal proceedings through any and all means is exactly how they ended up convicted of but unpunished for abusing a monopoly position in the US. Europe, thankfully, is no such pushover.
It's also refreshing to see that US states (CA and MA) acknowledge that, not only do their state laws not apply to the EU, but that they as states are obliged to protect the legitimate interests of companies located in their states against corporate behaviour that has already been found to be criminal on both sides of the Atlantic.
Microsoft broke the law and has been twice convicted for it. They have, however, paid no price for doing so and have not changed their business habits whatsoever. They are still embracing and extending, they are still moving into new markets to undercut and squeeze out rivals with the help of their OS, and they are still treating market regulators as contemptible wretches who can be outlasted, outspent, and buried under the collective output of an extremely high-priced legal team.
You'd think by now that they would realize that thier image is going down. Instead of being protective, why don't they put that effort into innovation? I don't think it's in their DNA.
Microsoft is sort of like General Motors - they stick with their old program, and wonder why they keep getting bludgeoned on the head time after time.
Heard recently in the Microsoft boardroom:
Gates: "Why does this keep happening to us? I give away billions and Europe treats us so badly."
Ballmer: "I haven't thrown any chairs lately. I even went to charm school"
Gates: "I've been the chief software architect for years now. You'd think they would trust me".
Ballmer: "Bill, it's for you. The Vista team. They're not going to meet their Q1 2007 deadline...."
Gates: "Oh s*#%".
So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU
You torched his ass dude, you torched his ass! Over here's America, we don't give a damn what that EU city is about and where the Europe island is. Who cares!
Take that terrorists!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.
Yep; Kafka knew of which he wrote.
But actually, I've read that while the European Commission does not provide due process in its rulings, one can appeal those rulings to a real court and get a real trial rather than edicts. (But I don't know how fair even that appeal trial is.)
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If by "sane legal system" you are refering to the so called US justice system I refer you to the IBM v SCO case.
evil is as evil does
IANAL...
But as far as I know, in a trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When it comes to an appeal, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
It is the defendant's duty in an appeal to prove that the findings of fact and final judgement in the trial are wrong.
For Microsoft, the trial is already over. They have been found guilty. This is an appeal, they have to either subject themselves to remedies or prove their innocence.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
All I can say is : Guantanamo.
If you were on trial, would you like to know what the charges were? Would you prefer the privilege of being presumed innocent? Would you like access to legal representation?
Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy (if they ever did); the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.
Also, as other posters have mentioned, US law is utterly irrelevant outside of US juridiction. You can't pick and choose laws when it suits you, as has been done at Guantanamo.
The rest of the world would be delighted if the US did exactly that.
Are you allowed to remove Windows and install another OS or dual-boot Windows and another OS? Yes.
Being pre-installed leads to inertia on the part of a customer, especially one who is not familiar with PCs. The PC vendor puts the work in to install Windows and ensure it works well on their hardware.
This obviously gives Windows an advantage over competing systems.
The decaying European economy will have a constant flow of money raised from taxes and penalties to Microsoft, and not only that.
.EUropean values, but Europe acts just like a prostitute in this case. For example, Microsoft is (forced?) to fund some projects like libraries, hardware and software for schools and libraries and so on. It's not a question of Microsoft's evilness, it's a question of Europe's price.
We, Microsoft System Administrators, will have to extend our business practices, and while preparing CDs with customized Windows installation, exclude from them not only the Windows Media Player, Games and drivers for Extinct Devices, but also a hundreight new Fascinating Software like a bunch of media players, skins, games...
As for that infested hive called Microsoft... For that Axis of Evil... Well, you know, Good is going to kick Evil's ass, as always, the only question is how deeply.
Although this fight against the Microsoft is reminding me more the fighting of rats in the flank - neither the fight of Good versus Evil. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of admirers of
Neal Stephenson stated it best in his essay (available free and legally on the web) The History of the Command line: Microsoft is not a traditional monopoly, and legally is not a monopoly at all if we follow strict adherance to the definition. It, however, does have a monopoly on the mindshare of the people. There is plenty of competition for MS, and much of it is arguably superior. The people just dont want to hear it, MS has won their minds. Of course one of the bigger results of this is driver companies focus and hardware support is done for them for free. But those are just imnplications which help hold the situation in place - economic intertia. Mindshare monopolies can be broken by seemingly inconsequential things.
I hate microsoft but I do hate to see them go down for things that aren't illegal really. Maybe if they were on trial for some other past deeds...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Ok so let's sum up what's bad:
Hey, you're right. Now I know why we have to sue Apple!
Are you seriously trying to argue that because America has gone and done something stupid like set up a black hole in Guantanamo that it somehow makes the EU's system of secret evidence and anonymous witnesses a good legal system? They're both bad!
I will be the first to admit that America is a hippocracy. Just ask the AMA and the AHA. But that doesn't mean that the principles of fairness should be tossed aside when judging other legal systems.
Ok so let's sum up what's bad:
* The OS comes preinstalled on the computer by the hardware vendor
* The OS itself bundles features such as a browser, media player and other essential applications which, due to lack of experience from the customers are strong "default" and remain in use just because they are available
* The applications for the OS in question can't run on another OS, so we have a vendor lock-in, meaning if there are no ports of the apps to another OS, the customers are out of luck
These things are not bad in principle. They are only bad if the OS in question is in a dominant position. In that case it would be potentially blocking competition in many areas.
Hey, you're right. Now I know why we have to sue Apple!
Apple is not subject to monopoly constraints because they don't have sufficient market presence. These things only matter legally if a company has a total or de-facto monopoly.
If Apple had 85% of the desktop computer market then yes, it probably would be time to review how they operated.
This is such an obvious point, I find it hard to understand why so many fail to see it.
If you were on trial, would you want the assumption of innocence?
The trial is long over and MS lost. This is not a trial, but about whether MS is conforming to the judgement handed down or not.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Cool and that would also probably avert WWIII.
"Apple is not subject to monopoly constraints because they don't have sufficient market presence."
OSX have 100% market share on the market of Apple computers, don't they.
Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis. You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.
Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.
----
Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.
Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).
And the problem was the same: if a professional device model gradually becomes affordable and popular, at what point it turns into a consumer device, which will, of course automatically mean the said device manifacturer is sued as hell for selling consumer devices without DRM.
I don't know why, but in the body of this post my feed agregator shows this: http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdot/to?i= HQvliE/
o.O
Until the next Hitler comes along.
Sooner than you might think, judging by the whole cartoon controversy. Europe is ripe for the picking.
Heil-lo, my Teutonic nemesis. This shall not be the last time we cross swords.
And by "cross swords," I think you know what I mean. Oh yes.
DIE JUDEN UEBER ALLES
+++ATH0
Parent makes good points. It's maybe not slashdot-PC, but it's not a troll.
> All I can say is : Guantanamo.
> If you were on trial, would you like to know what the charges were?
> Would you prefer the privilege of being presumed innocent?
> Would you like access to legal representation?
Yes! I do want my legal rights.
> Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy
The hypocracy of others is no excuse for one's own wrongdoing. Ever.
The American legal system added provisions against anonymous witnesses and secret evidence simply because they were unfair. Gitmo merely proves that doing end runs around those protections is unjust.
To say that no one "has the right to complain" is precisely why America has this problem right now--there simply aren't enough people working to change these problems. The solution to that is not to get into some pissing contest about who is better than whom, but to restore the lost legal protections.
OSX have 100% market share on the market of Apple computers, don't they.
True, but irrelevant. Most people don't use Apple computers for specialised apple-only things. They use Apple computers for browsing, office use... etc. For this reason they are part of the general desktop computer market.
Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis.
No, actually; the law is pretty clear.
You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.
Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.
No. You don't use general electronic devices for things like office software. There is a recognised desktop computer market that does not include mobile phones or calculators or televisions.
Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.
The % at which they would need to be controlled (or at least monitored) is the % at which they can use their market share to gain unfair leverage in other markets. That is what the law says.
Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).
I am not flaming MS for being a monopoly. I am also not personally troubled by DRM.
What concerns me is abuse of monopoly, or gaining that monopoly by unfair means.
There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.
One element of a moral code (not necessarily all moral codes) says that there are some things that superficially seem to make more money, but no matter what, do not do it, because in the long run you will not.
*deliberately reminding people of this*
If by sane justice system you mean the US Courts I ask that you please google and read up on "Ruby Ridge" and its resolution.
Yes yes mod me troll/flamebait whatever,
too many people I know never have heard of ruby ridge
and that means a hell of a lot more than moderator points
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Because your SUVs would run out of gas.
Better a bigoted idiot that doesn't know where they don't belong than a bigoted idiot that closes itself away from the world because the world is inferior, I always say, because the latter is more intractable.
I believe that the best ideas need to win out and that the only way to determine the best ideas is to let people with ideas mingle.
I don't know about the actual legal definition of the term monopoly, but IMO if you can patent software then you can have a monopoly in software. Just because Microsoft's monopoly is a so-called "mindshare" monopoly does not change the fact that it is very real.
Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?
Because you want to keep fucking the rest of the world I guess. You seem to like it, and we seem to give you money for it.
In Europe, person is also considered innocent until proven quilty. I really fail to see where this notion that in Europe you are quilty until proven innocent comes from. Fox News?
Each system has it's drawbacks. To us in Europe, the US legal-system doesn't seem that great either. It seems that anyone can sue anyone for some bogus reasons, and the one with better lawyers wins. And even though the lawsuit is totally bogus, it just keep on going. SCO vs. IBM has been going on for THREE YEARS. And to this date, SCO has not presented one shred of evidence to back up their claims. And the case is still going strong. What's wrong with this picture?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Yeah, right...
Microsoft *have* PC desktop monopoly, period. It is nothing wrong with that. Problem is - they have used all their monopoly power and benefits what they have because of that to...crush competition in semilegal ways, but mostly, with problems of compability for them (t.i. competition).
It is illegal and really *should* be illegal. Personally I don't give a damn that Microsoft has bilions, that it has very big market cap. I simply don't use their products, because Linux *for me* works. OS X works. Windows - very rarerly. And ALL I want is God damnn compability in protocols and several very popular file formats (MS Office).
And all these years I have wondered - why they are so resisting to share their stack with other world? They want to be only ones? Then screw them. If you mess with my life such way, I will mess with you, Microsoft.
I don't care about mindshare - it is still very hard to find very good and clever specialist to configure or even fix Exchange (I don't say anything how it is good or bad in usage, but for IT guys it is usually nightmare to support it in serious envorement). It is still very hard to find solution to rare problem of drivers, Office, any out-of-date software. It is hard to configure different apps to use different libraries in Windows. For me, Windows mindshare is just one part of IT. If IT specialist doesn't know other things than Windows, then...he will be clearly lost at some point of his career.
So, no. Microsoft has monopoly on several very important markets. It abused its position so often that I even don't believe they can be pushed to change a little bit in rational way. And its brainshare is very lofty and unconcrete mess.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
What's a clear, objective, unambiguous metric by which a corporation can judge whether or not it is a monopoly ? Some value that's possible to know about *before* exceeding it.
There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.
Citizen rights don't apply to a captured combatant, as stated by all international conventions on the matter.
Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.
Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy (if they ever did); the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.
The same with the U.N., whose oil-for-food scandal meant they were in bed with an Iraqi dictator while criticizing the "human rights" behavior of the U.S.
the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.
Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.
Microsoft isn't backed into a corner; they know full well who the competitors are that are cooperating with the EU's mediator to determine whether Microsoft is providing adequate API interoperability.
Microsoft wanted to declare that the mere fact the mediator spoke with their competitors meant foul-play. Well, the mediator has to speak with those competitors to do his job--determining if Microsoft was providing adequate documentation. It was a stall attempt by Microsoft that was dismissed, so Microsoft tried it in the U.S. by requesting those communications, and now it's been dismissed again.
This has nothing to do with questioning your accuser. It's about Microsoft trying to stall by calling foul-play where there is none. The mediator's job was to speak to those guys to determine the level of Microsoft's cooperation with the ruling. That there are people still believing that Microsoft is a victim in this is insane to me, but you have your opinion.
"Sufferin' succotash."
This is partially a bit of pedantry I guess, sorry for that, but the EU is still made up of lots of individual nations (and, given the rejection of the EU constitution, may always be). Although the EU provides a certain unification of legal systems throughout the member nations, at the nation level there are still major differences. At the EU level, it has to be remembered that, like so many things which are present on a Europe-wide level, the EU justice-system is a compromise; and compromises have a tendency to have glaring imperfections. But, in the EU, a blatant disregard of the norms of any member state (if the member-state lives up to some, exceedingly poorly-defined, woolly "level") isn't possible... Remember that when anyone who criticises the secretive nature of some proceedings- it's not necessarily due to any malevolent intent. This is more of an agreement with the above post then...
Not at all true. The 'abuse' comes from using the monopoly to expand into other markets, eg Microsoft with IE, Media Player, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to have a monopoly and simply enjoy it and let it grow. It's when you use that dominant market position to force other competitiors into submission that you are breaking the law.
The whole existence of a moral code is to derive maximum benefits. The whole concept of right and wrong hinges on whether or not something provides a benefit or not.
That is to say, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
Most of them hate the US because of what its done, because of its crimes and because of its arrogance. Most of them are looking for the day when the US crumbles and gains some humility.
They've no real problem with Canada.
Some, yes. But others hate America for the arrogant and ignorant attitude just displayed.
Did MS pay the programmers for IM/WMP/IE out of their profits, reducing this? No? Well, then, *I* paid for this development in the increasing cost of Windows.
Windows apologists keep saying "WMP is free! How can be given free stuff be bad?" Then in another conversation, when the increasing price of Windows is brought up they then say "Hey, you get lots more with Windows now than you used to, that's why the price has gone up!". Make your mind up, either it was free, so the price of windows HAS gone up or it wasn't free.
I have a relative who does European legal work for a certain Redmond based company. On behalf of him and corporate lawyers elsewhere, I hope Microsoft never gives in in this case. Mortgages, pension funds, property development, private school fees, skiing holidays, yachts and private aircraft all depend on Redmond fighting this case to the last ditch and beyond. To all the naysayers who think that Microsoft should just cave in before a load of Europeans (led by someone called Nellie, btw) I say: Think of the poor lawyers! Think of their children!
Pining for the fjords
Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?
Because you'd be back in the stone age within a decade. The US is the largest importing nation on the globe. 90% of what you can buy at your local Walmart was not made in the US. Not to mention, of course, that you'd all be crying and whining three days after your oil reserves run out.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Hey fool, most people at Gitmo were civilians rounded up because they had bushy beards, and none of them had guns either.
You idiots in the Axis of Good mighr like to explain how arresting some poor foreign chap in his home while he was watching TV equates to a prisoner of war and enemy combatant.
Go back to playing your banjo.
You mean the one that's absorbing former Communist countries, that makes Japanese cars more efficiently than they can in Japan, that hosts backward companies like AMD and Airbus, and that isn't trillions in debt? Thank God I live in a decaying economy rather than a dynamic one that's exporting all its added value to China.
Pining for the fjords
Except Canada.
"Quoting yourself is stupid." -Me
It wasn't so much that MS won my heart, as it was that they popped up a scary window that my system was broken, and requested that I please phone this number. When I did, the gentle person probed, asking questions, until I admitted I was running windows on top of DR DOS instead of MS DOS. This was a scam, but I didn't know that until long after the superior DR DOS was put out of business, and the company who bought the remains was put out of business, and the company who bought next (Novell) succesfully sued MS for the scam. They didn't so much "win my heart" as steal from me. Likewise, how much can you say is "winning mindshare" and how much was forcing OEMs to pay for Windows whether it was installed on a shipped PC or not? Or worse, raising the price to put an OEM out of business if they didn't actually physically install MS Windows on everything they shipped? Won the hearts and minds. Yeah. The bastards. They *stole* mindshare for inferior products using deceptive and illegal practices.
What's a clear, objective, unambiguous metric by which a corporation can judge whether or not it is a monopoly ? Some value that's possible to know about *before* exceeding it.
Well, being above a certain percentage of the market helps. Being 85 and 90% of all desktop computers is a pretty obvious metric.
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.
Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market.
Don't you have to declare war to have enemy combatantants?
http://outcampaign.org/
Article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Council of Europe) states:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
You can read the entire convention here
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Tell me a non-Microsoft operating system I can install that will run all of my applications. Lacking that, point me to the specification that allows someone to implement said non-Microsoft operating system.
http://outcampaign.org/
If it was really about "jealousy and spite", then Canada would be hated more than the USA.
Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.
Many of these people were not in combat or anywhere near it. For example the UK citizens who were snatched in Pakistan or others rounded up by the Northern Alliance. They were suspects, not proven combatants, but they were tortured all the same.
were in bed with an Iraqi dictator while criticizing the "human rights" behavior
Are you purposely wallowing in hypocrisy or do you just not know that the US (+ UK + many others) supplied arms and backed Saddam during one of the most bloody wars of the 80's (Iran/Iraq war), and only turned against him at the end of it when his delusions of grandeur became an irritant? Millions died in that little sideshow of the Great Game. Seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam on a trade mission? The very same Rumsfeld who architected this bungled attempt at an occupation. The same one who will lead you to invade Iran too, with disastrous results.
I suppose you hate the French as well as the UN - I'm surprised and dissapointed at all the narrow ignorance I read on predominantly American sites like this one. The UN is corrupt, and needs to be fixed, however the likes of John Bolton aren't going to do it, and this kind of posturing about UN corruption isn't going to help either - the current US administration is riddled with corruption, are you complaining as vociferously about that?
Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.
I'd be willing to bet you know no-one who hates America. You are in no position to judge their motives; in order to understand you'd have to be a little more frank with yourself and accept that an empire has its costs, amongst them the enmity of those you have subjugated.
Well if you want to accuse them of "holding a gun", do so. Don't hold them without accusing them. Currently, there is no way to ascertain anything about these people. Where they holding a gun? Are they the niece or nephew of someone Bush distains? Is it just because we had to hurt someone because we were hurt? If we went to trial the rule of law would establish facts and outcomes. Without the rule of law, God alone knows who these detainees are, what they've done, or what they could be accused of...
This is offtopic, but interesting. Are there legal ramifications to not declaring war? We seem to have stopped having wars, now we just kill. Why? There must be some sort of advantage, but I can't see it.
The last time something like that happened, a global depression occurred, followed by WWII.
What's more interesting about your comment, though, is that it was moderated +5 insightful.
BTW, the EU proceedings are a shakedown against Microsoft, pure and simple. Given how European governments are busy ruining their own economies, they have to get money from somewhere, and pretend to be doing something while they are at it, unfortunately.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
IANAL as you would say on your side of the Atlantic, but I agree with the Irish poster that has answered too. Here -France- an appeal is another trial, with other judges, possibly other investigators, and certainly other investigations can be requested by both parties to the case. Most of the time, an appeal is "suspensive" (dunno if the word is right in English): the first rulling is not enforced. In short, the defendant is still considered inocent in the appeal court, until proven guilty a second time. This does not mean that he will not be kept in jail if he/she is considered dangerous, but, precisely, the same does apply for the first trial.
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.
I don't think so! It is in the interest of the US to maintain the Microsoft monopoly just like it was and still is in their interest to maintain other monopolies or market dominances such as the one Boeing had over the commercial airliner market. It turned out to be in the interest of the European Union to crack the Boeing dominance, Airbus is wiping the floor with Boeing on a number of levels these days, and that example showed alot of people over here that the US corporations can be defeated even if they are supported by the US government. It is in the interest of the European Union to crack Microsoft's stranglehold on the European market since that will only boost their own software industries if they play their cards right. Despite the dismissive attitudes of US neocons toward Europe as a place to do business the European Union is still a market of 460 million people and as such it represents a very significant source of revenue for Microsoft. Threatening this revenue gives the EU considerable leverage against Microsoft and since MS is a US corporation the EU has little motivation to be kind to them.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.
The American Bill of Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are very similar both drawing heavily from Anglo-Saxon traditions of justice and individual liberty. Article 6 of the ECHR sets the standards for a fair trial and includes everything you would expect including the presumption of innocence.
The treatment of corporations is where the two systems differ. In the US corporations are protected, but the European system only applies to real humans.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
All I can say is : Guantanamo.
Perhaps then, we should just simply release all our Guantanamo detainees first thing tomorrow morning.... and drop them off in France.
Like in, "I, for one, welcome our new hippo overlords"?
:)
Oooh, you surely meant "hypocrisy"
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Note that, once again, the article is inacurate on one crucial point :
<p>
<i>Brussels has ordered Microsoft to open up its software code to rivals</i>
<p>
Wrong. One of the demand is that Microsoft provide usefull and complete documentation about its protocol so that other competitors can implement compatible systems working with the Windows environment. Precisely, MSFT <i>has</i> provided a source code, claiming it was their "ultimate documentation". The experts on the case disagree, and so does the commission; a source code is no documentation. They are still faulty, by wide margins.
<p>
And there are other demands by the EU, aiming at stopping them from leveraging on the OS to expand their monopoly over other fields (Media player, instant messaging, file servers, messenging systems perhaps, and so on).
I wonder why the Commission did not aim the PDA/Phone markets too. At least I do not know if they did. Last time I requested from MSFT the meaning of Active Sync error codes, to dig into this whole mess while using -surprise !- another editor's PIM software, I received the following -oral- answer: "we lost them, we do not know what all those error numbers mean". Sure... Thanks for your help Bill.
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
THE CHARGES ARE BEING BROUGHT BY THE EU COMMISSION. They weren't brought about by any of the companies Microsoft is trying to subpoena. Why would Microsoft needs those documents? It's not those companies on trial. It's not those companies that make interoperability with their respective OSes impossible. Microsoft solely has to defend why it isn't in a monopolising position for the specific reasons laid out against it.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
>Citizen rights don't apply to a captured combatant, as stated by all international conventions on the matter.
Either they are protected by the normal laws of every citizen, or they are prisoners of war and have those rights. There is not an area in between where they have conveniently no rights at all.
>Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in >combat.
How are you sure they had a gun? Did they have a fair trial?
Wow, das ist ja echt super das (angeblich) alles
auf Windows läuft, weil es sich kein Dritthersteller
leisten kann Microsoft dank seines ergaunerten Monopols
nicht zu unterstütze, du Schlaumeier. Du bist wie
ein Junky der sich bei seinem Dealer dafür bedankt
ihn an die NAdel gebracht zu haben.
PS: Auf meinem Slackware Linux läuft auch ALLES
was ich brauche. Von meinen preferierten
Multimedia-Anwendungen bis hin zu Maya 7.
Yes, every OS comes "bundled" with players. Plural. And said players are usually not made by the same company that offers the OS itself. And you may decide for yourself whether you want to use the player offered by the bundling company, you can remove it if you don't like it, or not install it altogether.
That are in short the key differences.
If the Media Player was done by a different company, if they bundled different players to give you a choice or if you could decide yourself whether or not you want the MP to be installed with your system (and if you could COMPLETELY get rid of it), it would be a very different matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.
Or for that matter don't ever travel to a country where there were any people doing that, like José Padilla, a U.S. Citizen arrested on U.S. soil, not holding a gun of any kind.
From the Wiki article:
He was arrested in Chicago on 8 May 2002 and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge and without access to his lawyer or family. He is now charged that he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas".
Now, I'm sure you would argue that he's got a suspicious past, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "being caught on the field of combat with a weapon" or somesuch.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
You don't prefer to use products from a company such as Canonical or Mozilla if their product fits my criteria because they at least make an effort to have a moral or ethical spine. You do it because their morality more fits in line with yours.
They're cool, they can come to Europe. Pick up Greenland on your way too, that's a cool place as well.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I find it endlessly fascinating that as soon as something differs from how it's done int he USA, it's automatically inferiour.
No, the EU trial system isn't the same as it is in the USA
No, defendants don't have the same rights they do in the USA
They have different rights, because in Europe (or anywhere else other than the USA), people have different ideas about what is fair, what is right, and how best achieve the balance between them all.
"Not Fair!" doesn't really apply. It's a different system, with different rules, that suites the sensibilities and ideals of the people it serves - just as yours serves you.
If somebody told me that anywhere in US presumption of innocence does not hold in trials, I would be as surprised as if I heard it does not hold somewhere in EU.
Obviously you have never been to traffic court.
MS is required to provide "meaningful" API documentation. Now, anyone who's ever worked for a large corp knows one thing: These docs don't exist. Never did. Never will. You know how it goes, you write software, it is late, you get pressure, you somehow patch it together and you finally check it in then fall into coma. Documentation? Read the effing source!
Now, RTFS works in house. Where you can, to some extent at least, hand over the source or at least the more important parts of it. Including "documentation" that goes along the lines of "and as the second argument, pass a structure to fill in so you know if the hack throws a fit worse than Balmer".
Can you hand out that kind of "documentation"? And is it "meaningful"?
Hardly. It would be, at best, an oath of disclosure of your inaptitude.
MS is indeed with its back to the wall. They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist. Hell, the people who COULD write the docs most likely don't exist anymore there. Not even with "more time" they could give the essential information required. So they're playing the game of stalling, appealing, calling for aid to whoever is available and tries to grasp for straws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
'cept us Indians!
Fsck Microsoft. They deserve everything they get. Plain enough?
I dont understand why MS doesnt just say "Ok, fuck you" and withdraw from europe. Refuse to sell their products or provide support to anyone in the EU and only provide support for existing liscences until they expire.
If the EU doesnt like MS, why try to force them to use their products? Hey, if the EU doesnt like MS thats fine, thats their choice; let the EU try to compete on the world market without using MS products. Sure, MS would lose some money, but the EU isnt the world; its just one of the few remaining fuedal parts of the world. I mean, if the cost of doing business somewhere is to let the EU fuedal overlords (excuse me, EU commission) dictate how you run your business, the cost far outweighs the benefits. Compromise but dont compromise yourself. The answer is obvious; dont do business there.
Focus on the Americas and especially Asia. Obviously the EU doesnt want MS, they dont want to use MS's products, so why try to be somewhere youre not wanted? Let the EU IT industry compete in the world market without using MS's products in any way. Obviously theyll do far better when not shackled by a monopoly. Obviously MS products are what is holding the EU back from being the IT leader of the world, as all cultured and sophisticated people recognize they should be. Of course the EU fuedal lords (excuse me, EU commission) know whats best for their subjects (excuse me, citizens), so the EU IT industry will be guided and rewarded by pure moral and philosophical motives which of course far outweigh any disgusting material/earthly benefit.
Everyone hates the french ! ^_^ Damn frogs... "Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite." I'm Dutch, I really dislike America (the american law and hypocricy that is ... nothing related to their middle eastern affairs) ...your really think that a Dutch person would have anything to be envious about , or jealous , when he thinks about the US?
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is ...
Hmmm, Microsoft has a big pile of money. Everybody wants it. That would be the real point.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
* Microsoft blows EU in new row * Microsoft blows new EU in row * EU rows and blows Microsoft ;)
parent poster is obviously a fatuous miscreant more impressed with her own keystrokes than reality - the Gitmo simile proves this
I like to say that I advocate for open source but if a company decides to develop closed source software that's their choice. That said, it's my oppinion that a bunch of companies are lobbying (and perhaps with no "good intentions") for these sanctions on MS even though it seems they have complied to a great length with the demands of the plaintiffs, but I argue, isn't there a limit up to where these compatitors can pretend compliance in regards to intellectual rights that MS has on it's own software? At the moment this whole thing is starting to look like a Witch Hunt and I'm starting to wonder who is benefitting on it.
Don't hold your breath waiting either. MS will wait until the little dogs in the EC have yapped themselves breathless and then call them to heel once it has the lock on the audio/visual market as well.
However, believe me, it's best for us all if Microsoft is spending money on lawyers rather than some of the other people they spend it on.
Why is everybody so hang up on the media player thing. That is just the result of bureaucratic wheels running 'very' slowly. that media player thing is from when there actually 'was' a battle between competing products like when there was a battle between 'browsers'. that is: years back! However what is the most interesting from the start and what this is all about now is opening the SMB/CIFS api's. The 'ability' to communicate with windows systems (clients and servers) on a level 'par' MS Software..
And that is what MS seems to dread more than anything..
for those 'in the know' mentioning other os'es competition. linux desktop is said to have a market share of 1% to 1.5% and that is the biggest contender..
I would call 90% cover a monopoly and MS has a lot more market than that
It's actually called "In the Beginning was the Command Line" and you can find it here [zip file].
Microsoft have managed to subvert most of the usual processes of ensuring fairness, because their "product" was something so new, and without any analogies elsewhere, that there just were no rules that could be used as a starting point.
To make pattern parts for a car, you buy the "official" part and go over it thoroughly with measuring instruments. Your parts have to match certain critical dimensions {such as the positions and threads of fixing holes, and possibly electrical current / voltage and hydraulic flow / pressure ratings} but may also do some things differently to the original parts. Point is, nothing seeks to stop you making them.
Now, suppose one car manufacturer decided that they would print a handbook containing certain important facts and figures about their cars, sell this at an extortionate price to manufacturers of pattern parts, and allow pattern parts only to be made according to the figures in the book and not by measuring original parts, and only by manufacturers who bought the book at full price from the car manufacturer. Obviously, this would restrict manufacturers to parts that they could manufacture using the specifications given in the book; if the book neglected to mention the maximum current likely to be drawn by the horn then this would preclude the manufacture of pattern horn relays. Additionally, incorrect data in the book might well lead to the manufacture of parts which could not actually be fitted to a vehicle.
Fortunately, this sort of thing would not be allowed in real life: once a car has been sold to a consumer, Exhaustion of Rights kicks in, and then the only thing standing between you and fitting all the aftermarket pattern parts you want is the annual roadworthiness test.
Unfortunately, when computers appeared on the scene, everyone was so blinded by science that they panicked, and common sense went out of the window. There isn't really an analogy in the non-computerised world for an operating system. For copyright purposes, computer software was classed as a work of literature. Now, this may not have been the right thing to do. Works of literature are not particularly modifiable and don't usually create other things; there isn't an obvious aftermarket. Computer programs can be modified to change their behaviour, and many computer programs create data files. This is evidence of two potential aftermarkets: one in modifying software that people have already purchased to alter or enhance its functionality, and another in supplying software to analyse and manipulate the data files created by other software.
Microsoft {and, it must be said, others; though nowadays Microsoft have eliminated or absorbed most of their competitors} have made unreasonable restrictions upon the legitimate use of their software. These include seeking to deny users the right to adapt software to their requirements, thus imposing their idea of a way of working on users {an act of violence}; and blocking the development of software which would work in various with data files created by Microsoft software, by deliberately withholding necessary details {also an act of violence}.
The owner of a car has the right to fit a new stereo, extra lights or upgraded braking systems supplied by parties other than the original manufacturer. The owner of a piece of software should have the right to change aspects of the way it works, or use other software supplied by a third party to interact with data files generated by the original software. Microsoft are guilty of interfering with those rights.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
That would have to be the most retarded statement I have ever heard. Although it would be fun to see the rest of the world wither away and die w/o US support. How would China's economy ever survive not to mention Taiwan and South Korea, they would no longer exist and Iran would nuke Israel. Mexicans would have nowhere to work, India would lose all US outsourcing and a large portion of the internet would vanish. The rest of the world would NOT be delighted if the US pretended they did not exist...
As for Microsoft, just stop buying their products if you're unhappy with getting an OS that works out of the box.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lab full of UNIX & Linux systems, Linux clusters and Macs, but if my end users had to work off a Linux box my phone would never stop ringing. When it comes to work, people like to sit down in front of a system that works with out spending days and days looking for decent drivers.
For the EU that is kids pocket change ..
by the way, about the voluntary contribution to the state, didn't they invent something called TAXES for that..
It makes perfect sense to me; every other desktop operating system, when you add their marketshare together, are insufficient to challenge the monopoly that Windows has over the market.
We've all seen the pie charts--it's 90-something percent Windows and a sliver of "everything else." It pains me to say that as a Linux and Mac user, but that's how it is. Even if every non-Windows computer in the world was running the same OS, and not a variety of different ones, Windows would still have a monopoly. It's not a 100% monopoly, but that's not what the word means.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The only plan the EU sees is to make Microsoft pay for unbelievable fines for something that most companies would tell them to go stick it for. Microsoft has definately made very bad "fair business" decisions in the past, and I am not trying to defend them on that, but what the EU is asking for is totally insane, and how can they possibly justify it? As far as the codecs...okay, so the codecs go into MS format. The vast majority of media players already make use of them, and who hasn't already found that they can download LEGAL software that will translate into another viable format? This isn't meant to be a bash on your opinion, but I don't feel the EU is justified in many of their actions of late.
It actually would have hurt MSFT worse if the subpoena were approved, however improper. It would have eliminated the appeal, and cut delays. MSFT know this, so make their requests as outrageous and opposible as possible.
MSFT have learned that in a fast-changing technological world, justice delayed is as good as justice denied. Unfortunately, the legal system works by giving maximum defense latitude, and that brings in delays.
Are those really "other markets"? If every other desktop OS bundles those apps, and consumers expect those apps to come with the OS, then aren't they really a part of the "OS market?"
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
If your "big corporation" is full of prgramming cowboys you can't extrapolate that to all the other big corporations.
There are many corporations that document properly their programms, including detailed API information.
I would expect thisto be the case in a software development company like MS.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
." Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player. At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is if they're not going to call MS on its real bad business practices and will instead throw questionable charges at Microsoft."
Precisely put from the first poster on this topic. Every OS comes with a Media player like every fucking car comes with a radio and heater. How the fuck did this become the basis for any litigation at all
I will tell you how, its just anti-americanism propagated by euro-trash and their useful idiots here in the US.
You cant beat them, SUE EM!
Is it not obvious that the bulk of ongoing litigation involves uber successful American corporations and that anti-trust, patent viloations or other ridiculous charges leveled at these companies is just a method used by their competitors to trip up and slow down the defendants success.
Of course RIM may be an exception being a Canadian company so its not as cut and dry as I may declare but nevertheless, its there.
How many fucking lawsuits kicked off by EU corporations against American or at the very least North American companies will it take until Americans realize this just all stems from the fact that we did not cowtow to old europe in global politics (election of GWB and Iraq) and especially not in business.
Oh thats right, we sent that message for a straight 6 years now and all they can repond with is litigation as a means of fighting some aspect of an unrestricted economic war while kissing our ass when its beneficial for them.
Thats all they got!
Man, those guys get everything!
Going to war--really going to war--requires a specific Act of Congress, a Declaration of War. I think the last time this was actually done was after Pearl Harbor, 'wars' since then have been peackeeping or police actions (Truman I believe coined the phrase "police action" in reference to the UN deployment that began Korea).
The cynic's answer to your question is, the reason it's not often done is that it's perceived as being more difficult to garner the support in Congress necessary to pass a Declaration of War than it is to just send some troops in as peacekeepers, more or less start a war, and then get people to support it retroactively. It becomes markedly more difficult to oppose a war once troops are already on the ground there; one can fairly trivially paint one's opponents as unpatriotic, potentially treasonous, at that point, where it would be difficult to do that earlier.
The current War in Iraq is sort of in a grey area between a executive action and an actual, formally declared war, although tending towards the latter; it was approved by Congress via the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force in Iraq" (I think I'm getting that name right) in advance of hostilities, but a real Declaration of War wasn't signed. I'm not exactly sure why they didn't go the extra step and just get a formal declaration, it seems as though there was enough support for it, and the Authorization they got is tantamount to one anyway. It serves the same function, but without the fancy name.
I'm not sure whether the War Powers Act effictively did away with Declarations of War and replaced them with the Authorizations that now seem to be more common; personally I always though the symbolism of the Congressional Declaration was useful, and it seems to me that if you have the political support for it, why not do it and remove the possibility of having your procedure questioned later.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
...and so it makes little sense for the EU to try and fight with anti-trust actions. Why don't the Europeans wise up and just put a team of dev talent together and create their own OS so as to guarantee privacy for their business residents?
Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows.
Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
Just my opinion, anyway
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
The rate of increase of external debt. The CIA factbook makes it clear that the total debt of the mainland European economies was about half that of the US and its UK satellite combined.
Pining for the fjords
Most modern IDEs, including Kdevelop, will automatically create documentation for you. I don't know and don't care if M$ has such tools but it's wrong to say they can't.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Is it time to bring up Hitler yet?
Sheesh.
Well, I guess that explains the state of Microsoft code... they've been snorting too much "blow"! Must have used up all the old blow...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes, there is an in-between area... And they are currently in it.
By what reasoning do you consider them protected by the normal laws of every citizen? They are not citizens, and are not on US soil. How do they qualify to the rights under our Constitution?
By what reasoning would you classify them as combatants, and thus eligible for prisoner of war status? They wore no uniforms, fought on the side of no country.
So, how do we classify them? They don't fit either classification - not citizens (or even legal aliens) and not war combatants per the Geneva convention. They're where they belong - in between.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If you download and select to install the bundeled version, then at the EULA for iTunes select 'no' or 'i disagree' or whatever, then you can install quicktim without iTunes, that's how i got around it,
still had to remove the start bar iTunes folder tho'.
Wait, so now a fair justice system is a tradeoff and not an expectation we place on any governmental organization?
No, no. From what I understood of what he is saying, the point was that, independently of the EU's judicial system being any good, a multinational corp HAS to deal with the systems in place in each country they step into. The tradeoff here is "I get another slice of the world market, but I have to make my behaviour conform to yet another legal system".
Microsoft overreaching in order to advance its interests? I'm shocked! And dismayed. That's it, shocked and dismayed.
"Try going to Apple's home page and clicking the Quicktime tab at the top, and you'll see a big "Quicktime for Windows" download button"
which will take you to the next screen with a big FREE DOWNLOAD button which will download itunessetup.exe !
There is a little text link on there somewhere to download JUST the program you were aiming for. The page is also clearer about it being quicktime AND itunes than it was last week? when i did it..and got itunes instead. All i wanted was to watch some short little clip that needed quicktime and the default links take you that monster.
no, I said that >90% market share is already a monopoly and since MS has about 98% of all desktops and I don't know how much % of servers. By the way, the servers came in via the desktops..
'cause of that it is necessary to be able to 'talk' to windows installations. Either desktop or server.
'Cause the negative situation of monopoly's is well understood the EU and US government try to stand against that. If you'd want any chance at all to bring anything new or competing you will at least have to 'work' with MS windows.
by the way, as a MS customer myself, I am thrilled about every bit of competition there is out there for Microsoft. It is the only way to make MS make better/newer stuff :)
Same for Intel customers, please buy some AMD stuff, just to thank them to make Intel create *much* better processors!
That's kind of the point - originally these were other markets! That's how other browsers and media players were previously successful, because they weren't bundled with the OS. Since Microsoft bundled these with Windows, they've used their market dominance to force these to become the standard application.
But as far as I know, in a trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When it comes to an appeal, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I am not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. (in the U.S. at least)
In a criminal trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In a civil trial, the burden of proof is a preponderence of the evidence. (i.e. you dont have to be proven guilty, just proven that is't pretty likely)
An appeal does not presume guilt or innocence and doesnt prove guilt or innocence. In an appeal, the defendant is claiming that there was some failure of the process that makes the first trial unreliable as the basis for a decision. If you are successful in an appeal, it doesn't mean you are innocent. It means that first trial is voided and you can be retried (with possible stipulations from the appeals court intended to avoid making the same failure again).
In the E.U., I imagine an appeal is used in a similar way.
It is the defendant's duty in an appeal to prove that the findings of fact and final judgement in the trial are wrong.
it's the defendant's job to prove the process was flawed in a way that voids the trial. It doesnt necessarily mean the facts are wrong. It could mean evidence was unfairly excluded or that evidence wasn't properly disclosed, or the judge made a bad ruling, or a juror violated their responsibilities in a way that tainted the jury, or any number of other things.
In the U.S. antitrust case, the appeals court used the judge's behaviour to overturn the judgement. They upheld the findings of fact, but accepted the argument that his statements demonstrated a bias that made him unfit to determine Microsoft's punishment.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
In other words, a company with a "monopoly" cannot improve its product(s) with new features that might already exist in other products.
So I was wrong. You *can* hold a monopoly position and not abuse it. You just have to let your products stagnate and avoiding any attempts to improve them in line with your competitors.
It's perfectly legitimate to have a monopoly and simply enjoy it and let it grow. It's when you use that dominant market position to force other competitiors into submission that you are breaking the law.
If the other competitors have a better product, they won't be "forced into submission". There are few examples of Microsoft products becoming dominant when they weren't the better product.
What percentage ? Is it variable ? What affects its value ?
How can I find out what this percentage is *before* my company reaches it ?
Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market.
In other words, by not improving their product in line with competitor's products.
So it appears you can have a monopoly and not abuse it. Of course, by doing that you'll be well on the way to going out of business by the time you *don't* have a monopoly, since you won't have been able to keep your products at feature-parity with your competitors.
Every application (and even lots of low-level system functionality) that is included with every current OS fits this description. Why is it no-one gets upset about modern OSes "bundling" shells, network stacks, widget libraries, GUIs, printer drivers, CPU schedulers, text editors, calculators, FTP clients, card games, etc, etc, etc ?
Uhm, Walmart is posting a loss year after year in Germany. Absolutly-no-thrills supermarkets (Aldi, Lidl) grabbed a big part of the market and are now steamrolling the rest of Europe. Germany is considered the most difficult retail market of Europe (the world?) as margins are minimal.
And why? Because market regulation prevents the oligopolies to turn into monopolies (well, at least tries to unless overturned by politicians). And oligopolies trying to form trusts are actually fined.So, every million bucks in fines takes 10% of their profit. The fines are potentially $2.4/day, so about the EU will take 1/4 of M$'s profits for themselves. Their stock price would drop the same amount, and then some.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Don't worry, the with it companies are following the Munich example.
The downward spiral is clear. Third rate product and abusive practices are reducing their sales already. Add further Vista delays and dissapointment and the looming recession from increased oil prices and their revenues will drop off the chart. That and $2.4 million a day will finally trigger a shareholder revolt which destroys the value of their stock and their ability to pay their employees. No employees, no product, no revenue, no employees. It's taken long enough to happen.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
>By what reasoning do you consider them protected by the normal laws of every citizen? They are not citizens, and are not on US soil. How >do they qualify to the rights under our Constitution?
They were not captured on US soil maybe, but do you deny that Guantanamo Bay is not US siol? If so, why is there an US military base there, I don't think Cuba asked the US to setup a base there.
>By what reasoning would you classify them as combatants, and thus eligible for prisoner of war status? They wore no uniforms, fought on >the side of no country.
If they fought for no country and had no uniform, the normal law of the country they fought in should apply to them.
The country they fought in should trail them.
The country they fought in should keep them prisoner, if they are indeed convicted.
>So, how do we classify them? They don't fit either classification - not citizens (or even legal aliens) and not war combatants per the >Geneva convention. They're where they belong - in between.
Indeed, they are captured by a nation who has no right what so ever to keep them. They are not where they belong, because they should either be free, or be on trial in the nation they fought in.
By what right has the US captured them?
By what right does the US keep them?
What percentage ? Is it variable ? What affects its value ?
How can I find out what this percentage is *before* my company reaches it ?
You get in lawyers and market experts to advise you. This is what any sensible large company does - they have major legal departments.
"Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market."
In other words, by not improving their product in line with competitor's products.
Of course not! Bundling is not a matter of improving their product in anyway - it is a marketing strategy; a matter of getting the foot in the door first by being pre-installed. To be on an equal footing in line with competitors products the extra features the media player etc. could be supplied extra on additional CDs with competitor's versions, or obtained through downloading (just like a competitors).
So it appears you can have a monopoly and not abuse it. Of course, by doing that you'll be well on the way to going out of business by the time you *don't* have a monopoly, since you won't have been able to keep your products at feature-parity with your competitors.
Don't be silly. Of course you can keep your products at feature-parity. The point is not to pre-install features which competitors are attempting to provide. This means things like media players, virus checkers, etc.
Pre-installation gives a built-in advantage, even for products of lesser quality.
Trying to squirm around these restrictions by labelling such features as 'part of the operating system' is one of the reasons why some don't consider Microsoft to be behaving correctly.
I cherish my ignorance on the subject. :)
In fact, in my 30 years, I haven't even had the need to own a car yet - a cab works for my needs 90% of time and is cheaper in the long run.
However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.
Of course not! Bundling is not a matter of improving their product in anyway - it is a marketing strategy; a matter of getting the foot in the door first by being pre-installed.
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ?
How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
Answer: they cannot.
To be on an equal footing in line with competitors products the extra features the media player etc. could be supplied extra on additional CDs with competitor's versions, or obtained through downloading (just like a competitors).
And if none of the competitor's products provided sufficient/equivalent functionality ? How can a company in a monopoly position provide *better* (or even equivalent) functionality than their competitors ? They cannot, because by doing so they will be considered "abusive".
Or, as I said, a company in a "monopoly" can no longer compete, nor deliver new features - in line with competitor's products - to its customers, because it will be considered "abusive".
Don't be silly. Of course you can keep your products at feature-parity.
No, you cannot. Because every feature that a competitor has which a third party may also be capable of providing - if implemented by you - is an "abuse" of a "monopoly".
The point is not to pre-install features which competitors are attempting to provide. This means things like media players, virus checkers, etc.
So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc.
All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.
How can Microsoft hope to maintain feature-parity with its competitors when they are free to integrate functionality and it is not ? How can *any* OS vendor who might be in a monopoly position improve their product when those improvements will almost certain be functionality that is also provided by a third party. The whole point of an OS is to run software, after all.
Trying to squirm around these restrictions by labelling such features as 'part of the operating system' is one of the reasons why some don't consider Microsoft to be behaving correctly.
Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't. Indeed, one of the standard criticisms of Windows on Slashdot is that it doesn't come with *enough* functionality.
There are only two definition of "Operating System" relevant to this discussion. Either the academic definition, which would exclude almost every bit of functionality - including all typical methods of interaction - people expect from an "Operating System", or the marketing definition, which is basically whatever the vendor wants to say it is.
I remember the days when getting close to the functionality of a modern platform like Windows, OS X or the typical Linux distribution required spending a lot of money and time on finding and acquiring third-party software, little of which worked well together
However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.
Well, the Clayton Act should have rung some bells at the microsoft legal department when they were "cutting Netscape's air supply":
Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The law is clear enough for microsoft's legal team to have noticed that they were well over the boundries of the law. If the law is vague, I urge you to explain where it is and why microsoft didn't use your explanation in its case against the US. It would be very informative. Microsoft were/are using monopolistic practices. The thing is, abusing a monopoly and crossing the line of legality is worth it, as it turns out. Also:
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
Microsoft could have provided this functionality as a seperate CD/DVD/download. Or they could permit the uninstalling of these features as linux in particular does. The software 'bundled' with linux is easily interchangeable and in no way promotes a lock-in strategy of any sort.
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
This can still be done by providing these applications as add-on components. And if that is too 'mispleasing', an uninstall option would be enough to get the law off microsoft's back.
So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc. All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.
All these fe
However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.
.
Of course they can. As I said, they have substantial legal departments that can advise them that they are moving into dangerous areas in terms of monopolistic behaviour. To simply wait for a court to decide is incredibly dumb - any good legal team can advise that problems may lie ahead.
How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ?
That is, of course, not the point. Firstly, those companies are not monopolies; secondly many of them bundle several alternatives.
And if none of the competitor's products provided sufficient/equivalent functionality ?
Well hard luck to them.
How can a company in a monopoly position provide *better* (or even equivalent) functionality than their competitors ? They cannot, because by doing so they will be considered "abusive".
Sorry, but I think you need to re-read my posts.
A company in a monopoly position can of course provide better functionality than their competitors.
But just not a bundled products. There is nothing to stop Microsoft providing the best quality media player ever.
Or, as I said, a company in a "monopoly" can no longer compete, nor deliver new features - in line with competitor's products - to its customers, because it will be considered "abusive".
Delivering features in something that is an operating system is one thing. Bundling things that had generally been accepted as not being part of an OS before (such as a browser) is obviously and blatantly something else.
So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc.
Ideally, it should; and there have been exactly such debates over aspects of Windows in the past - matters such as Netware's stack, Diskeeper's NTFS disk tools etc.
There are different issues with such things, however, as what Windows normally does is provide low-functionality basic versions of many of these things (such as disk repair tools), which don't really compete with the specialised and high quality tools offered by competitors. This means that the competitors can still make substantial amounts of money.
However, what we are dealing with here is far, far larger markets - the distribution of a wide range of media types, to the extent that Windows is in some products being sold as an entire home media centre, for films, music, TV etc.
Surely you can see that there is a difference between bundling a notepad text editor and an entire home media centre. That is what Microsoft are trying to do: to leverage their substantial (monopoly) desktop presence to gain power in other markets.
That is illegal.
Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't. Indeed, one of the standard criticisms of Windows on Slashdot is that it doesn't come with *enough* functionality.
When is the point goint to get through? This matters because they are a monopoly
Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't.
Nonsense. For example, back in the early 90s, Internet Explorer was not bundled. It was shipped on separate media. Microsoft deliberately tied it in as part of the core OS to crush Netscape. That is established fact.
Linux, but at least it's usually free). I have _zero_ interest in having to do that again. Most people think OSes gaining more and more functionality out of the box is a *good* thing.
Firstly, you can of course have more functionality out of the box. But why not do it the Linux way, and have more than one alternative provider of that functio
Every application (and even lots of low-level system functionality) that is included with every current OS fits this description. Why is it no-one gets upset about modern OSes "bundling" shells, network stacks, widget libraries, GUIs, printer drivers, CPU schedulers, text editors, calculators, FTP clients, card games, etc, etc, etc ?
Because Microsoft does not generally do deals to prevent other companies bundling alternatives to these. Microsoft's OEM licensing terms prevented many things like this. Microsoft targetted specifically things that would allow them to control access to major new forms of media or information.
There is all the world of difference between a card game and an internet browser or multimedia player. There is no substantial market for the distribution of card games!!
Germany, for example, used (not sure if they still do) to force stores to sell at the same price
Only for books, magazines and similar 'cultural' items to give publishers more chances to cross-subsidize the 'avantgarde' products with the mass-market ones.
It used to be for much more - things had a richtpreis that was the selling price store to store. Switzerland even limited sales to specific dates and only allowed two per year. Germany and much of teh EU have opened markets to more competition, and I susspect more and more of the small family owned stores will close as the more efficient hyper markets attarct customers with lower prices. (Which WalMart and Aldi are already doing to those stores)
No wonder Germans and other Europeans, when they have a choice, shop at WalMart, Corte Inglais, and other large stores that offer lower prices.
Uhm, Walmart is posting a loss year after year in Germany. Absolutly-no-thrills supermarkets (Aldi, Lidl) grabbed a big part of the market and are now steamrolling the rest of Europe. Germany is considered the most difficult retail market of Europe (the world?) as margins are minimal.
As I pointed out - given a choice the consumers prefer lower prices, wether it's Aldi, Walmart or another store. They were not always afforded that opportunity in most of Europe as government regulations essentially eliminated sicounted of list prices.
And why? Because market regulation prevents the oligopolies to turn into monopolies (well, at least tries to unless overturned by politicians). And oligopolies trying to form trusts are actually fined.
Market regulations usually benefit the companies at the expense of the consumers - by keeping prices higher than if competition were allowed. Want to keep coal miners employed even if it means higher energy prices for consumers beacuse coal from South Africa is cheaper - add a tax onto energy. Competition means that some stores will close and poeple will lose jobs - outcomes politicians, especially in the more paternalistic EU countires, loath.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.