BO turned around because McLie failed to follow up on his part of the "deal". Since McFail basically did whatever the hell he wanted to, Obama probably decided not to let the old vampire's tricks get him.
Yes of course. Anyone who isn't a Republican is amoral of course!
Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are as bad as the Obama faithful, if not worse. At least their obsession is hope that something is going to improve. Yours is destruction and lies.
80% of Slashdot bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick.
And you are one of the 20% who demonized him before you even knew anything about him? Figures.
It is going to be fun (in a tragic comedy sense) watching the disillusionment after a couple of years of increasingly violent denials that Yup, he is just a politician.... and while possessing great oratary skills not all that bright in the end.
Right. You are as bad as the 80% you claim "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick". Except you are blinded by irrational hatred of Obama for some reason.
Now, I don't know who those people who "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick" were. I didn't see any of them. But I guess you 20% see them everywhere. A bit obsessive, are we? Angry that McCain didn't win? Scared that science might just trump superstition?
Oh yeah, you're right, that's even better. Instead of having AOL crapware browser 9000 and whatever else in addition to IE. We'll now see PCs come with just the AOL crapware browser. That will make web design really fun because a fair number of people will be too lazy to get anything else. I can't wait for the web browser to be just another piece of crapware that comes with an OEM machine. Great.
What you are describing here is IE. IE is the crapware browser which you need to write code for specifically, whereas other browsers are more standards compliant (even though they have to spend shitloads of time emulating IE for sites to work). Why do you want Microsoft's crapware?
You are a troll because you know that the question has been answered numerous times. There are many ways to get a browser, and the most common way will be for OEMs to preinstall one for you.
You wave your and and spout the magic "they are a monopoly" and think this will win your argument. It doesn't.
You are a blatant liar. I can say this because I have on numerous occasions informed you that, according to the law, Microsoft is a monopoly. But it is not illegal to be a monopoly. What is illegal is abusing one's monopoly position in one market to prevent competition in another market. But you know this as well by now. But you insist on lying. Pathetic.
Laws which are only enforced against Microsoft (not EU companies).
Bullshit. I mean, seriously, where do you get this inane drivel from? Microsoft campus?
The conditions imposed on MS fairly obviously violate the Berne Convention.
In what way?
These "crimes" are the results of complaints by European and other companies that they're were losing money to MS.
No, Microsoft broke the law. That much is clear. They illegally abused their dominant position in the desktop market to ruin competition in the browser market.
The thief should walk into court and just say this is my life. I want to walk freely in the streets. If you don't like that, tough luck. I know I broke the law, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that I want to be free to walk, so I should be free to walk just because I say so.
You don't need IE to download browsers, and there's nothing preventing OEMs from preinstalling browsers for you.
How can any operating system not include a default browser?
The operating system of a convicted criminal. But even if the OS doesn't include a browser, no one is saying that the computer can't. OEMs can easily install a browser.
It would be a slippery slope where Macs would need to include Firefox as well as Safari.
Not unless Apple breaks the law.
I would not want to take away Microsoft's ability to include a default browser, because the next logical step would be to take away Apple's ability to include Safari and KDE's ability to include Konqueror as their default browsers.
Again, no, that would not be the next logical step. It's just you being illogical and ignoring the facts.
Ok, maybe they don't exist in some third-world developing countries. Any examples?
And this is not "free" market.. That's overly regulated market. Apparently, they (EU, WTO, name it..) are regulating what doesn't need to be/shouldn't (browser monopolies, software patents, etc..)
The US is regulating its market too. Indeed, browser monopolies that are damaging everyone else should be regulated.
Competition comes from offering for sale what the people want at a price that's convenient to them - offering a better deal than your competitor, not what the law dictates.
The problem is that Microsoft is not offering a better deal. They don't dominate the browser market because they offered something better than anyone else.
Anti trust laws are here solely to prevent a single entity from being the sole provider of a commodity (and thus being able to set the price at will) - and THIS is clearly not the case (since not only are they are not the only ones, but no-one is ever pretending to make you pay for it)!
False. Antitrust laws are here to prevent predatory practices that undermine competition.
As long as 'free' (a la RMS) ACME-Browsers exists, people will *ALWAYS* have a choice..
Not in practice, now. Even today, many sites still require IE.
Note that there are some countries where a monopoly is considered legal - most especially when the monopoly is state controlled.
Monopoly in itself isn't necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem when you abuse your dominance in one market (desktop) to prevent competition in another (browsers).
The bottom line is that Microsof broke the law, ruined the web, and they must pay the price for that.
Besides, I fail to see how their patent can stifle innovation.
Software patents do. With them, you stop other people from doing obvious things and build on that to innovate further, slowing the innovation process down. Furthermore, big players with huge patent portfolios can always find something to use against smaller competitors to prevent them from gaining a foothold.
They were awarded the pantent for doing something innovative in the first place.
By the way, software patents don't work. They do not protect smaller players against big predators. Because if you sue a big player for infringing on your small company's software patents, that big player probably has thousands of patents, and will counter-sue for one of their patents. Software patents only benefit patent trolls and big corporations (to a somewhat lesser extent because they can't protect against patent trolls). Everyone else will be victims of the vast patent portfolios of patent trolls and megacorporations.
Also, by limiting the potential for great reward you will limit the amount of people who will take a chance.
Not at all. If there is competition you have no choice but to keep going forward. If there are patents, you can stop the forward momentum. So software patents are damaging to innovation, while no software patent forces the market to move forward; it leads to actual competition.
In pharmacy - for all the billions they make in medicine, they also take a LOT of risk.
Indeed, and quite different from software too!
If someone creates a popular, but restricted piece of software and allows add-ons it could spur other businesses. Look at Windows. Closed source, but look at all the companies that make STUPID amounts of money on products based on Windows...for example Blizzard. Patented, closed source, highly restricted software caused another business to flourish...in MS' case they have helped thousands of businesses/gov'ts/personal folks to flourish with their software.
Once again you confuse patents and copyright. This is not about open or closed source. This is about giving someone the ability to implement something themselves. Windows isn't flourishing because of Microsoft's patents. You are dishonestly trying to mix "proprietary" and "patented". Stop it.
Well, if that were true, then this would be a great way to make sure that Opera doesn't unfairly gain market share using the courts, wouldn't it?
Opera isn't using the courts to gain market share. Opera reported a crime to the EU. Like you would report to the authorities if you witnessed a robbery. Try to pay attention.
How is anyone forced to use IE, then? Since I can install any browser I want on my copy of Windows, I'm certainly not forced to use IE (excepting the times when FF doesn't work properly with a website)
Exactly! Even to this day, many sites require IE. If you want to use all those sites, you are forced to use IE. Because of Microsoft's illegal actions.
If Opera wants actual competition: a) advertise their product and b) make it compelling enough for people to switch. I look at Opera every few years, and to this day have found not a single reason to switch (from Firefox).
I don't give a damn if you find Opera "compelling" or not. And when you start comparing it to Firefox, when we are talking about IE here, it becomes clear that you are more concerned about throwing out red herrings than anything else. The fact is that Microsoft broke the law by undermining competition. It's that simple. In markets with actual competition, such as mobiles and devices, Opera is the dominant browser.
If the user is really that concerned about their browser choice, they'll find out about others and use them. If they're not, why make it more difficult on them?
The user shouldn't have to be concerned about the browser. However, that shouldn't make it difficult for someone else to choose a different browser. Today, it is difficult. By your own admission, many sites still require IE.
This is going to be just like the version of Windows Microsoft was forced to sell that didn't include Media Player...no one bought it.
Hopefully not. I hope the EU learned from their mistakes on that one.
I don't think google makes money from searches !
Google makes money by selling advertisement space..
Google does make money from searches, not that it's relevant to the point I was making. No searches, no ads, remember?
Now, if the EU *really* want to make this a "competitive" space, they're going to have to ask the browser providers to make the same treatment towards search engines that they do towards browsers..
Not unless a browser vendor is found guilty of breaking the law as Microsoft has been.
Why don't we just let the people decide instead of pushing through those ridiculous laws ?
Because in this case, Microsoft has unlawfully prevented people from deciding by destroying competition in the market.
Dear EU.. Please, focus on more important matters..
Antitrust cases are important to protect the market from abuse. The US has antitrust laws as well. In fact, all countries in the world have them. You only think they aren't important because you lack knowledge.
Your hypocrisy becomes you. At least I made a relevant and coherent argument, whereas all you have is personal attacks.
The law is not set in stone, but antitrust laws exist all over the world. And they will be enforced whether you like it or not.
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you that antitrust laws are wrong. You didn't even produce an argument to support your bogus assertion.
making a company put a competitors software on their operating system merely because the majority of users prefer one OS to another is hokey
The company is forced to put a competitor's software on their OS, not because the marjority "prefers" it, but because they broke the law. If you rob someone, you will be put in prison. When you break the law, you will be punished, regardless of why you did it. But Microsoft did in fact break the law willfully and with clear intent to destroy competition.
I agree, Microsoft should simply remove IE from Windows and let OEMs take care of the bundling.
However, if they do bundle multiple browsers, one cannot assume that all users will choose the same browser. So that part of your argument I don't agee with.
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law. Microsoft broke the law. Enforcing the law is not about being childish and spiteful. What have you been smoking?
Slashdot Mirror
BO turned around because McLie failed to follow up on his part of the "deal". Since McFail basically did whatever the hell he wanted to, Obama probably decided not to let the old vampire's tricks get him.
Right. So you are basically a wingnut.
Yes of course. Anyone who isn't a Republican is amoral of course!
Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are as bad as the Obama faithful, if not worse. At least their obsession is hope that something is going to improve. Yours is destruction and lies.
And you are one of the 20% who demonized him before you even knew anything about him? Figures.
Right. You are as bad as the 80% you claim "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick". Except you are blinded by irrational hatred of Obama for some reason.
Now, I don't know who those people who "bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick" were. I didn't see any of them. But I guess you 20% see them everywhere. A bit obsessive, are we? Angry that McCain didn't win? Scared that science might just trump superstition?
How convenient to define it so that you can frame the discussion and "prove" exactly what you set out to prove in the first place.
Yet another claim based on carefully framing the data?
What you are describing here is IE. IE is the crapware browser which you need to write code for specifically, whereas other browsers are more standards compliant (even though they have to spend shitloads of time emulating IE for sites to work). Why do you want Microsoft's crapware?
You are a troll because you know that the question has been answered numerous times. There are many ways to get a browser, and the most common way will be for OEMs to preinstall one for you.
You are a blatant liar. I can say this because I have on numerous occasions informed you that, according to the law, Microsoft is a monopoly. But it is not illegal to be a monopoly. What is illegal is abusing one's monopoly position in one market to prevent competition in another market. But you know this as well by now. But you insist on lying. Pathetic.
Bullshit. I mean, seriously, where do you get this inane drivel from? Microsoft campus?
In what way?
No, Microsoft broke the law. That much is clear. They illegally abused their dominant position in the desktop market to ruin competition in the browser market.
You don't need IE to download browsers, and there's nothing preventing OEMs from preinstalling browsers for you.
The operating system of a convicted criminal. But even if the OS doesn't include a browser, no one is saying that the computer can't. OEMs can easily install a browser.
Not unless Apple breaks the law.
Again, no, that would not be the next logical step. It's just you being illogical and ignoring the facts.
Ok, maybe they don't exist in some third-world developing countries. Any examples?
The US is regulating its market too. Indeed, browser monopolies that are damaging everyone else should be regulated.
The problem is that Microsoft is not offering a better deal. They don't dominate the browser market because they offered something better than anyone else.
False. Antitrust laws are here to prevent predatory practices that undermine competition.
Not in practice, now. Even today, many sites still require IE.
Monopoly in itself isn't necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem when you abuse your dominance in one market (desktop) to prevent competition in another (browsers).
The bottom line is that Microsof broke the law, ruined the web, and they must pay the price for that.
Software patents do. With them, you stop other people from doing obvious things and build on that to innovate further, slowing the innovation process down. Furthermore, big players with huge patent portfolios can always find something to use against smaller competitors to prevent them from gaining a foothold.
That's just your assumption.
By the way, software patents don't work. They do not protect smaller players against big predators. Because if you sue a big player for infringing on your small company's software patents, that big player probably has thousands of patents, and will counter-sue for one of their patents. Software patents only benefit patent trolls and big corporations (to a somewhat lesser extent because they can't protect against patent trolls). Everyone else will be victims of the vast patent portfolios of patent trolls and megacorporations.
Not at all. If there is competition you have no choice but to keep going forward. If there are patents, you can stop the forward momentum. So software patents are damaging to innovation, while no software patent forces the market to move forward; it leads to actual competition.
Indeed, and quite different from software too!
Once again you confuse patents and copyright. This is not about open or closed source. This is about giving someone the ability to implement something themselves. Windows isn't flourishing because of Microsoft's patents. You are dishonestly trying to mix "proprietary" and "patented". Stop it.
They are, according to law.
This is just a straw man/red herring. You are talking about copyright, not patents. No wonder you are so confused.
The time you have spent actually developing something is protected by copyright law. No need for patents to do that.
Not sure what you are saying. Bundling with other-company hardware? Microsoft doesn't make PCs.
Opera isn't using the courts to gain market share. Opera reported a crime to the EU. Like you would report to the authorities if you witnessed a robbery. Try to pay attention.
Exactly! Even to this day, many sites require IE. If you want to use all those sites, you are forced to use IE. Because of Microsoft's illegal actions.
I don't give a damn if you find Opera "compelling" or not. And when you start comparing it to Firefox, when we are talking about IE here, it becomes clear that you are more concerned about throwing out red herrings than anything else. The fact is that Microsoft broke the law by undermining competition. It's that simple. In markets with actual competition, such as mobiles and devices, Opera is the dominant browser.
The user shouldn't have to be concerned about the browser. However, that shouldn't make it difficult for someone else to choose a different browser. Today, it is difficult. By your own admission, many sites still require IE.
Hopefully not. I hope the EU learned from their mistakes on that one.
Google does make money from searches, not that it's relevant to the point I was making. No searches, no ads, remember?
Not unless a browser vendor is found guilty of breaking the law as Microsoft has been.
Because in this case, Microsoft has unlawfully prevented people from deciding by destroying competition in the market.
Antitrust cases are important to protect the market from abuse. The US has antitrust laws as well. In fact, all countries in the world have them. You only think they aren't important because you lack knowledge.
The law is not set in stone, but antitrust laws exist all over the world. And they will be enforced whether you like it or not.
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you that antitrust laws are wrong. You didn't even produce an argument to support your bogus assertion.
The company is forced to put a competitor's software on their OS, not because the marjority "prefers" it, but because they broke the law. If you rob someone, you will be put in prison. When you break the law, you will be punished, regardless of why you did it. But Microsoft did in fact break the law willfully and with clear intent to destroy competition.
However, if they do bundle multiple browsers, one cannot assume that all users will choose the same browser. So that part of your argument I don't agee with.
OEMs will preinstall a browser, and if you build your own PC you will know how to get your hands on a browser anyway.
It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law. Microsoft broke the law. Enforcing the law is not about being childish and spiteful. What have you been smoking?