EC fines Microsoft 1.5B US$ ???
-
Article[^] "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of E.U. competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Free market societies, my foot. You know, if the freaking gov't would stay out of Microsoft's hair, do you think maybe that would actually give competitors an advantage? Isn't a free market supposed to balance unfair pricing? Do ya think? Friggin' idiots. Regulated, controlled, fine-me-if-I'm-too-big "competition policy" is not free market competition. (and yeah, I know this was just posted right below. It was, however, missing a good rant.) Marc
The argument against the beast of Redmond is not that they are too big or too profitable but that they used their dominant position in the market to stifle competition unfairly. Without government regulation we'd just have the dirtiest business winning all the time and no doubt those dirty corporations would want to own the governments to pursue their own dark aims. We'd be in a bad place and I for one hope that such a thing doesn't come to pass in Europe.
-
Article[^] "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of E.U. competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Free market societies, my foot. You know, if the freaking gov't would stay out of Microsoft's hair, do you think maybe that would actually give competitors an advantage? Isn't a free market supposed to balance unfair pricing? Do ya think? Friggin' idiots. Regulated, controlled, fine-me-if-I'm-too-big "competition policy" is not free market competition. (and yeah, I know this was just posted right below. It was, however, missing a good rant.) Marc
As far as I can tell with this one: EU tells MS to license its protocols. It's allowed to charge for them. MS does this and then charges for them. EU tells them they've charged too much and subsequently fines them. How is MS supposed to know in advance what the right price is?
Kevin
-
Sorry Ed, but after all they are your politicians.
Software Zen:
delete this;Actually, they're not - we don't get to vote for them!
-
Sorry Ed, but after all they are your politicians.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Actually, they're not - we don't get to vote for them!
Sounds like it's time to buy a small cannon* and go into business for yourself... * The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Next Windows Update, all of the Windows boxes in Europe should revert to 'limited-functionality' mode until the E.U. lifts the policy. If the policy isn't removed after 10 days, they wipe their hard drives.
Software Zen:
delete this;I know this is a joke, but just imagine all the lawsuits againg MS if they did that, especially since people paid for full functionality. And that would make things worst, because that would add to the monopoly abuse case.
-
The argument against the beast of Redmond is not that they are too big or too profitable but that they used their dominant position in the market to stifle competition unfairly. Without government regulation we'd just have the dirtiest business winning all the time and no doubt those dirty corporations would want to own the governments to pursue their own dark aims. We'd be in a bad place and I for one hope that such a thing doesn't come to pass in Europe.
Russell Jones wrote:
Without government regulation we'd just have the dirtiest business winning all the time
So what you're saying is that we need gov't to impose ethics on corporate behavior. Which, by my thinking, means that the concept of a free market economy does not work, because we're not mature enough to behave in an ethical manner without the cop threatening to hit us over the head with his big stick. And then of course, you get gov't that overcontrols, overregulates, and is itself unethical in its behavior. Walking the razor's edge... Actually, it's more like those chaos attractors, or whatever they're called--they move around from one extreme to another but never actually escape. Seems to me we could do better. :sigh: Marc
-
You forget that the EU is owned and run by the socialist Franco-German alliance which, for America, means that it is inherently anti-American. 1: The Germans hate you (and us) for beating them in WWII 2: The French can never forgive you (and us) for saving them in WWII. I wouldn't blam MS for ignoring it and telling the EU to Eff Off: see how long they can run the evil empire without Windows.
-
Article[^] "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of E.U. competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Free market societies, my foot. You know, if the freaking gov't would stay out of Microsoft's hair, do you think maybe that would actually give competitors an advantage? Isn't a free market supposed to balance unfair pricing? Do ya think? Friggin' idiots. Regulated, controlled, fine-me-if-I'm-too-big "competition policy" is not free market competition. (and yeah, I know this was just posted right below. It was, however, missing a good rant.) Marc
Exactly what you said.:cool:
-
As far as I can tell with this one: EU tells MS to license its protocols. It's allowed to charge for them. MS does this and then charges for them. EU tells them they've charged too much and subsequently fines them. How is MS supposed to know in advance what the right price is?
Kevin
Anything above GPL would get them fined for over pricing. GPL would get them fined for locking EU ISVs out of using it with their existing applications.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Russell Jones wrote:
Without government regulation we'd just have the dirtiest business winning all the time
So what you're saying is that we need gov't to impose ethics on corporate behavior. Which, by my thinking, means that the concept of a free market economy does not work, because we're not mature enough to behave in an ethical manner without the cop threatening to hit us over the head with his big stick. And then of course, you get gov't that overcontrols, overregulates, and is itself unethical in its behavior. Walking the razor's edge... Actually, it's more like those chaos attractors, or whatever they're called--they move around from one extreme to another but never actually escape. Seems to me we could do better. :sigh: Marc
I see it like a game of football. The government acts as the referee / umpire and ensures that play happens within the boundaries of the regulations. If people don't like the rules they can go to the games authorities and get them changed. In this case the EU demanded that MS opened up their APIs to competitors so that the playing field was level. MS then chose to release those APIs with a licence that they knew was too restrictive to allow the OSS community to use them. They also knew that once they had released those APIs into the wild they could reasonably argue that people like SAMBA had gained knowledge from their release and could then sue them for breaching the terms of the licence. These were premeditated dirty tricks on a colossal scale, actually using the terms of the initial judgement as a stick to beat the very people the court was trying to protect. I certainly think we need to impose ethics on corporate behaviour. How many people needed to die in the mines or in their early 40s due to mining related illnesses before the government stepped in and produced rules to protect the work force? How many CEOs would happily lay off their previously loyal work force with 1/2 an hours notice if laws weren't in place to prevent them doing so? Corporations and their senior executives are motivated by a lust for money and power and nothing else, it is government's job on behalf of society to inject a level of humanity into the dealings of these behemoths. Of course it could now be argued that the business of politics and of centralised government has become an industry itself and that government ethics have now been reduced to those of the lowest corporations; certainly in the US and UK the government and industry seem to have formed a symbiotic relationship allowing both to feed off the populace that the government supposedly represents. In the MS decision what we are seeing is a government that actually stands up for what it believes in and the corporate world up in arms because the regulatory powers have been far too quiet for far too long and the money machine has grown used to getting it all its own way. I'm rarely very impressed by the actions of the various EU bodies but today I am proud to be a European. Russell
-
Russell Jones wrote:
Without government regulation we'd just have the dirtiest business winning all the time
So what you're saying is that we need gov't to impose ethics on corporate behavior. Which, by my thinking, means that the concept of a free market economy does not work, because we're not mature enough to behave in an ethical manner without the cop threatening to hit us over the head with his big stick. And then of course, you get gov't that overcontrols, overregulates, and is itself unethical in its behavior. Walking the razor's edge... Actually, it's more like those chaos attractors, or whatever they're called--they move around from one extreme to another but never actually escape. Seems to me we could do better. :sigh: Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
So what you're saying is that we need gov't to impose ethics on corporate behavior.
Not starting on you, but seriously, how is this any kind of radical assertion? Not that I'm an MS-basher, but it seems obvious to me that if they had the choice, they'd brutally crush any kind of competition to their monopoly. Which, in a completely "free", open-market philosophy is grrr-reat, because it's seen as the manifestation of the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing, and the market makes the best decisions and all that, and it's a fair and natural way for things to be, but that breaks down when you get to the point where we are now. Competition breaks down, and you have no incentive to innovate and create better and better products. So the consumer suffers.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Which, by my thinking, means that the concept of a free market economy does not work, because we're not mature enough to behave in an ethical manner without the cop threatening to hit us over the head with his big stick.
I don't think his original assertion could be extrapolated to that conclusion with any degree of truth, or, indeed logic. It would more likely follow that we cannot trust those in positions of huge power and by extension responsibility and trust to have our best interests at heart when they're trying to think of new ways to get us to spend our money.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Seems to me we could do better.
I agree. Unfettered free trade and corporate licentiousness is not, however, the way to improve things.
-
I see it like a game of football. The government acts as the referee / umpire and ensures that play happens within the boundaries of the regulations. If people don't like the rules they can go to the games authorities and get them changed. In this case the EU demanded that MS opened up their APIs to competitors so that the playing field was level. MS then chose to release those APIs with a licence that they knew was too restrictive to allow the OSS community to use them. They also knew that once they had released those APIs into the wild they could reasonably argue that people like SAMBA had gained knowledge from their release and could then sue them for breaching the terms of the licence. These were premeditated dirty tricks on a colossal scale, actually using the terms of the initial judgement as a stick to beat the very people the court was trying to protect. I certainly think we need to impose ethics on corporate behaviour. How many people needed to die in the mines or in their early 40s due to mining related illnesses before the government stepped in and produced rules to protect the work force? How many CEOs would happily lay off their previously loyal work force with 1/2 an hours notice if laws weren't in place to prevent them doing so? Corporations and their senior executives are motivated by a lust for money and power and nothing else, it is government's job on behalf of society to inject a level of humanity into the dealings of these behemoths. Of course it could now be argued that the business of politics and of centralised government has become an industry itself and that government ethics have now been reduced to those of the lowest corporations; certainly in the US and UK the government and industry seem to have formed a symbiotic relationship allowing both to feed off the populace that the government supposedly represents. In the MS decision what we are seeing is a government that actually stands up for what it believes in and the corporate world up in arms because the regulatory powers have been far too quiet for far too long and the money machine has grown used to getting it all its own way. I'm rarely very impressed by the actions of the various EU bodies but today I am proud to be a European. Russell
Russell Jones wrote:
In this case the EU demanded that MS opened up their APIs to competitors so that the playing field was level. MS then chose to release those APIs with a licence that they knew was too restrictive to allow the OSS community to use them.
Wait a minute. If we talk about competitors, then I think of people that are into the business to make money. The OSS community is not, for the great majority, what I would fit into "a business to make money". For the EU to support freeloaders, people that want to disrupt the market, etc., well, that's just plain wrong. Should I get the gov't to sue farmers because I go to the market and sell my oranges for free? Even worse, should I get the gov't to sue farmers to give me some of their land so I can grow and then sell oranges for free? NO! Holding up a business, in the business of making money, to the OSS community is sick.
Russell Jones wrote:
I certainly think we need to impose ethics on corporate behaviour.
We need to take the EU out and shoot them, that's what we need to do.
Russell Jones wrote:
How many people needed to die in the mines or in their early 40s due to mining related illnesses before the government stepped in and produced rules to protect the work force? How many CEOs would happily lay off their previously loyal work force with 1/2 an hours notice if laws weren't in place to prevent them doing so?
I will contend that it is not up to gov't to regulate industry. If those miners and their families had stopped work and demanded better conditions, that would have worked too. Yes, it would have imposed great hardships on them, yes the companies could probably imported Chinese to work the mines instead, etc. The point is, it's people, not gov't, that needs to impose ethics on businesses. But people are either too afraid or they just don't give a damn. That's where the problem lies. And until that changes, yes, I agree, that's the role of gov't. When it works. The EU and its regulations to support the OSS community is BS.
Russell Jones wrote:
Corporations and their senior executives are motivated by a lust for money and power and nothing else, it is government's job on behalf of society to inject a level of humanity into the dealings of these behemoths.
Politicians are in the po
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
So what you're saying is that we need gov't to impose ethics on corporate behavior.
Not starting on you, but seriously, how is this any kind of radical assertion? Not that I'm an MS-basher, but it seems obvious to me that if they had the choice, they'd brutally crush any kind of competition to their monopoly. Which, in a completely "free", open-market philosophy is grrr-reat, because it's seen as the manifestation of the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing, and the market makes the best decisions and all that, and it's a fair and natural way for things to be, but that breaks down when you get to the point where we are now. Competition breaks down, and you have no incentive to innovate and create better and better products. So the consumer suffers.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Which, by my thinking, means that the concept of a free market economy does not work, because we're not mature enough to behave in an ethical manner without the cop threatening to hit us over the head with his big stick.
I don't think his original assertion could be extrapolated to that conclusion with any degree of truth, or, indeed logic. It would more likely follow that we cannot trust those in positions of huge power and by extension responsibility and trust to have our best interests at heart when they're trying to think of new ways to get us to spend our money.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Seems to me we could do better.
I agree. Unfettered free trade and corporate licentiousness is not, however, the way to improve things.
melchizidech wrote:
It would more likely follow that we cannot trust those in positions of huge power
I don't trust anyone in power, whether they wield huge power or not.
melchizidech wrote:
Not starting on you, but seriously, how is this any kind of radical assertion?
It's not a radical assertion. I was just getting to the core of things. Marc
-
melchizidech wrote:
It would more likely follow that we cannot trust those in positions of huge power
I don't trust anyone in power, whether they wield huge power or not.
melchizidech wrote:
Not starting on you, but seriously, how is this any kind of radical assertion?
It's not a radical assertion. I was just getting to the core of things. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
I don't trust anyone in power, whether they wield huge power or not
Well it's all very well and good to say that and I think most people feel the same way whether you're talking politicians or businessmen. The point is degrees of accountability. There is a greater degree of accountability in the case of an elected politician whose job is to ensure that certain rules are not being breached as compared to a businessman whose sole perogative is to make as much money as possible whatever way he can.
-
Next Windows Update, all of the Windows boxes in Europe should revert to 'limited-functionality' mode until the E.U. lifts the policy. If the policy isn't removed after 10 days, they wipe their hard drives.
Software Zen:
delete this;I'll probably have to pay for this fine. Twice. I've already payed for the EU politicians, and I will help pay the fine next time I buy a copy of Windows. So no. I most definitely don't want my Windows copy to be limited in any way! :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Article[^] "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of E.U. competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Free market societies, my foot. You know, if the freaking gov't would stay out of Microsoft's hair, do you think maybe that would actually give competitors an advantage? Isn't a free market supposed to balance unfair pricing? Do ya think? Friggin' idiots. Regulated, controlled, fine-me-if-I'm-too-big "competition policy" is not free market competition. (and yeah, I know this was just posted right below. It was, however, missing a good rant.) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Free market societies, my foot.
Don't get too self-righteous. Gov't regulation is the price we pay for Gov't enforcement of handy things like copyright... ;)
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
Anything above GPL would get them fined for over pricing. GPL would get them fined for locking EU ISVs out of using it with their existing applications.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
Basically, Microsoft is a cash cow for them. The bureaucrats need the funds to replenish their expense accounts. :)
Kevin
-
Sorry Ed, but after all they are your politicians.
Software Zen:
delete this;