Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Responds to EU With Another Question
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has responded to the latest round of EU requests by asking how much the EU thinks they should charge for Windows Server Protocols. The EU has stated the Microsoft should charge based on 'innovation, not patentability' and that they have 'examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies' concluding 'only four may only deserve to claim a limited degree of innovation.' The EU is also starting to discuss structural remedies as opposed to the behavioral remedies they are currently enforcing. At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds?"
So the electric company should just charge you whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it? Because, hey, if you don't like it you can always move.
Well, the US convicted Microsoft of being a monopolist, then did nothing about it. There's clearly a problem (I don't think we need to argue about that on Slashdot.) So, is it just the idea that the great all powerful US isn't doing it that some people find annoying? Or would you rather some other "superpower" like China, India or Russia ends up having to do it (in 15 or 20 years time).
Reality needs to be faced. Your government can't deal with the wayward MS business, the EU wants to deal with your problem for you. Isn't that nice of them?
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
I see that companies are sovereign powers now, and that they are able to do whatever whenever because it is their god-given right to earn money for the share-holders, yada-yada-yada. Give me a break. If MS doesn't like Europe's laws, they can go and try to sell their products elsewhere. Nothing guarantees them the right to make a profit.
I think that is for EU citizens to decide.
At what point should the EU government stop protecting its citizens from a convicted monopolist? Is probably a better question.
realkiwi
Well, speaking as an American, I'm glad the EU is spanking Microsoft, since our government is so completely bought and paid for by corporate interests that there is no longer any meaningful regulation of anticompetitive behavior here. In any event, I don't view Microsoft as an American company in any meaningful sense. If a foreign power had damaged US productivity and parasitically drained off as much capital from US businesses as Microsoft has, it would be construed as an act of war. Microsoft helps America only in the sense that it helps itself to lots of American money it could not access if American regulators still gave a shit about competition.
As far as I'm concerned, the EU hasn't gone far enough. But to be fair, and to avoid attributing to EU regulators a moral high ground they don't in fact possess, I have my doubts that the EU would have gone as far as it has if Microsoft was a European company. On the other hand, it's questionable whether, say, French agricultural subsidies affect nearly as many people as Windows.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
"The EU has already overstepped their bounds."
Indeed. By granting copyright and patent protection to MS, they have interfered with natural selection. Your argument is invalid because without government, there would be no such thing as patents.
MS has abused its privileges. The people have a right to revoke them.
If you're a company (ie, an artificial entity that exists only based on law and not any natural basis), then yes, you do exist solely by the legal grace of the real people in the jurisdictions where you conduct business.
Considering Stalin was a communist, and large international megacorporations are generally somewhat capitalist, I think you may have to repeat 7th grade.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The "issue" of this law would be that the EU commission doesn't accept the number of patents as a metrics for innovation ? Considering that software patents are not recognize in EU I only see a coherent decision and a good law.
There are also laws in some EU countries about interoperability that aim at forbidding a company to abuse a dominant position to prevent third-party interoperability. Call it socialist if you will, but I only see this as a way to guarantee a free competition in a free market (an objective which is harldy socialist)
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.