Slashdot Mirror
Did Google Tip Off EU About Microsoft Browser Ballot?
Dupple writes with a story about the latest in the Google-Microsoft feud. "The tired spat between Google and Microsoft just got a lot more interesting after reports that the search giant tipped off European authorities to antitrust concerns, a tip that will now cost the Windows-maker nearly a billion dollars. When news of the fine levied by the European Union's competition watchdog broke on Wednesday, nobody was too surprised that the European Commission was punishing Microsoft for bullying consumers. But with a recent headline-stealing dispute between the Redmond, Washington company and Google, it's competitor down in Mountain View, California, bloggers got curious. Early Wednesday evening, The Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara wondered, 'Did Google Snitch?' According to a Financial Times report published a few minutes later, the answer is yes."
This story is an obvious troll. There was no need to "tip off" the EU, it was plainly obvious to everyone the browser ballot disappeared and the EU obviously monitors compliance with its rulings.
Furthermore when did â500m before "nearly a billion dollars"? Someone can't do maths.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Microsoft were fined for a reason. Who cares that google complained? They make a browser... this is sooooo non-news.
A competitor violates the rules to ruin a company and if you call the cops you are a snitch?
Are you a gang member or just a moron?
Its too bad slashdot has been reduced to articles like. I applaud google for helping out the individuals rights to choose what software they run on the computer, and find it shocking that the new slashdot owners are posting an article trying to shun google for helping in an anti-trust case. Aren't we supposed to be on the side of those people fighting for things like this? Next up our new slashdot overlords will be poking fun at the EFF.
http://interserver.net/
Sad, sad, sad submitter. Reflects the intellectual poverty of one who has no other idea of this action than "snitching". The very word is negative and implies something is wrong with informing the authorities that Microsoft is breaking the law (again - what a surprise). Where did this even come from? Oh yeah, "snitches get stitches". Who created this meme? Oh yeah, drug dealers who wanted to intimidate the local population into silence. And now the media is going along with it without even thinking of the implications. Good job everyone.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Who is Adam Clark Estes? I'd really like to know, because his "article" reads like it was written like a 5-year-old. "Ooooh, you can't snitch on people; the honour code is not to snitch! They are is not are playing fair! They is are doing what they're s'posed to do! They stoled my donut and lunch money but I didn't snitch! Snitches is are naughty!" Is he still in kindergarten?
His closing words in his "article": "Well, who looks triumphant now?"
Not you, Adam. But you do look like a moron.
I don't get it (I'm not in the EU), but you might have thought more people would have noticed besides Google that the Browser Ballot was missing for 17-18 months? Seems odd.
It is odd, and most likely not true.
It was Opera software who originally complained, an one would assume they have taken five minutes occasionally to check.
I know for a fact it wasn't only, if at all, Google complaining about the missing ballot screen. I filed a complaint myself. I'd also be surprised if of all competitors Opera didn't file a complaint. The only thing I wonder is, whether my email with the complaint went directly to /dev/null. I've never received a reply.
According to reports, the ballot was out of action for 14 months before the EU noticed. So if Google really did snitch, they most certainly did not do so in a timely manner.
This just seems to be pure speculation, given the length of time the ballot was down, it could be anyone or no one...
If Google told on Microsoft, I have no problem with that. Now, Google should inform on Microsoft on trying to control the entire PC market and squash Operating System competition with "their" hated "Trusted computing" platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing ..
Based on Microsoft's track record, how can you a) Trust Microsoft b) Trust ANY company .c) Leave control of your hardware to a corporation that does bidding of governments / media cartel - especially if they are foreign governments.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
But with a recent headline-stealing dispute between the Redwood, Washington company and Google,
it's competitor down in Mountain Diew, California...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"Brussels punished Microsoft for failing to give at least 15m consumers a choice of web browser - a violation of a voluntary antitrust pact that was spotted and raised by Google and Opera, according to several people familiar with the case."
"Opera said it was "happy to see that the Commission is enforcing compliance with the commitment, which is critical to ensuring a genuine choice among web browsers for consumers". Google declined to comment."
Google tip-off leads to Microsoft EU penalty
AccountKiller
If I was looking for nits to pick, I could greater nit than this.
How many nits could a nit picker pick, if a nit picker could pick nits?
My business: Farstrider Studios.
Probably lots of people noticed, but you can't imagine the amount of time needed for Brussel's bureaucrats to do something about it.
Copyright and Patents are not a human right, or an undeniable/natural right. They are a made up concept, a contract between society and the copyright/patent holder. "We will allow you to restrict usage of this particular work if you continue to make other works like this for the benefit of society". Sure, it doesn't work that way, but that's what's supposed to be anyway. So, since we are giving someone a privilege, society should be able to set the rules, and take back the privilege if the rules are broken. So the contract should be more like "We will allow you to restrict usage of this particular work for a limited period of time, but you must offer this work under reasonable prices and policies, you must respect your users, and you must play nicely with the rest of the market. Also, you have to deposit all of your source code and any other information you used to create your work, and after that period expires, or if you break the contract, they'll be released to the public domain.". That sounds like a much more rational contract. You want the privilege of copyright or patents? Great, we'll give it to you. We'll give you anywhere between 5 and 15 years of copyright or patent protection, how much will depend on the kind of work you are releasing. In exchange, you have to deposit with us all relevant information regarding your work, for example, source code in the case of software, manufacturing procedures and blueprints in the case of hardware, etc. If you breach this contract, you'll lose all protection, and after the the original protection is over, we'll still release all that information. If your breach of contract is bad enough, we'll also release all those secrets early.
This fine is like making the penalty for bank robbery 25% of the money stolen. Everyone will be robbing banks ... it's not a penalty, or a fine, it's a tax. Well, microsoft's benefit from locking down the market far exceeds 731 million dollars, so it's not a fine, it's just tax.
Threaten companies with losing copyright and patent protection, and see how quickly they start to behave.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Sorry, but I got hung up on the numbers as well. "not quite 3/4 billion dollars" does not equal "almost a billion dollars". When someone says "almost a billion", I most definitely expect something more than .8 billion. Less than .75 is simply not "almost".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br