EC fines Microsoft 1.5B US$ ???
-
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; -
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:
That means that the EU should be distributing 1.5M USD to each of those companies should Microsoft cough up the money.
Exactly!
Kevin
-
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:
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!
that analogy is so off-target as to be laughable, quite frankly. A closer comparison would be a situation where the farmers restricted access to the market square where the free oranges were being sold, or declared that those who were eating free oranges could not eat their oranges.
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
Ahem. So let me get this straight, in order to effect change in the way Microsoft works, we are to all simultaneously go back to pen-and-paper offices, and switch off our Windows machines? And miners in the 40s were supposed to walk out of work and wait for management to cave in ? Oh-kay, genius. I wonder who would've starved first. The whole point behind the government/regulatory body having the responsibility to take care of this is that they have the tools/rights/laws/jurisdiction/callitwhatyouwant to do it, and there is some kind of oversight, i.e., if they bugger up and get caught, they get slung out on their ear. I agree with you that the practice is never a perfect representation of the theory, but even an approximation of it is better than no implementation at all.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists. You can't win this argument with me, because politicians and lawmakers (law-f***-you-overs, realistically) are not serving the long-term interests of people, businesses, the environment, nor the economy they are supposed to protect. They are no less political and ego motivated than corporations. In fact, I would argue they are more motivated, because their abi
-
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...
Shog9 wrote:
Gov't regulation is the price we pay for Gov't enforcement of handy things like copyright...
Let's not forget patents too! ;P Marc
-
Shog9 wrote:
Gov't regulation is the price we pay for Gov't enforcement of handy things like copyright...
Let's not forget patents too! ;P Marc
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
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!
that analogy is so off-target as to be laughable, quite frankly. A closer comparison would be a situation where the farmers restricted access to the market square where the free oranges were being sold, or declared that those who were eating free oranges could not eat their oranges.
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
Ahem. So let me get this straight, in order to effect change in the way Microsoft works, we are to all simultaneously go back to pen-and-paper offices, and switch off our Windows machines? And miners in the 40s were supposed to walk out of work and wait for management to cave in ? Oh-kay, genius. I wonder who would've starved first. The whole point behind the government/regulatory body having the responsibility to take care of this is that they have the tools/rights/laws/jurisdiction/callitwhatyouwant to do it, and there is some kind of oversight, i.e., if they bugger up and get caught, they get slung out on their ear. I agree with you that the practice is never a perfect representation of the theory, but even an approximation of it is better than no implementation at all.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists. You can't win this argument with me, because politicians and lawmakers (law-f***-you-overs, realistically) are not serving the long-term interests of people, businesses, the environment, nor the economy they are supposed to protect. They are no less political and ego motivated than corporations. In fact, I would argue they are more motivated, because their abi
melchizidech wrote:
that analogy is so off-target as to be laughable, quite frankly.
Well, all analogies are faulty, if you want to get right down to it.
melchizidech wrote:
A closer comparison would be a situation where the farmers restricted access to the market square where the free oranges were being sold,
And why shouldn't they?! I'm sure they had to pay for the space, so why would they want to screw themselves over by giving some of the space to people who are not in the business of making money (for profit, hopefully)?
melchizidech wrote:
So let me get this straight, in order to effect change in the way Microsoft works, we are to all simultaneously go back to pen-and-paper offices, and switch off our Windows machines?
No. Start using Macs. :)
melchizidech wrote:
You do realise you managed to circularly argue against yourself there don't you?
I did? I thought my theme was consistent. :) Marc
-
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
Part of the problem is the ability to patent software. IMHO, this shouldn't be allowed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
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:
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.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The EU and its regulations to support the OSS community is BS.
The freeness of open source is measured in terms of freedom not in terms of price. I admit there are loads of OSS devs who code for fun or dogma but equally there are many companies eg MySQL Redhat who run businesses on the OSS model. I would also disagree with your assertion that these people are freeloaders; I know a couple of guys who work on OSS projects in their freetime and give their work willingly and for free having worked all day and paid taxes, that to me is the antithesis of a freeloader. The argument should not be that OSS devs are protected from MS or even that MS is protected from OSS if the tables ever turn but that everyone should have a fair crack at the whip. Even in our money obsessed society, why should someone who gives their all to the community willingly be stamped on by the avarice of a corporation and its shareholders? To take your oranges example, the current state of play is that MS turn round and say: "You hippies are growing oranges to feed your communities. Your actions are detrimental to our profit margins and we're going to take your farm from you via the courts; what right do you have to steal the dividends from our shareholder's wallets?"
Marc Clifton wrote:
Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists. You can't win this argument with me, because politicians and lawmakers (law-f***-you-overs, realistically) are not serving the long-term interests of people, businesses, the environment, nor the economy they are supposed to protect. They are no less political and ego motivated than corporations. In fact, I would argue they are more motivated, because their ability to stay in office
-
Basically, Microsoft is a cash cow for them. The bureaucrats need the funds to replenish their expense accounts. :)
Kevin
What MS ought to do is to raise their prices in the EU by NN€. Put a sticker saying "price includes NN€ regulatory fee" on retail copies, and the same message on the default desktop for preinstalled OEM copies.
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
-
melchizidech wrote:
that analogy is so off-target as to be laughable, quite frankly.
Well, all analogies are faulty, if you want to get right down to it.
melchizidech wrote:
A closer comparison would be a situation where the farmers restricted access to the market square where the free oranges were being sold,
And why shouldn't they?! I'm sure they had to pay for the space, so why would they want to screw themselves over by giving some of the space to people who are not in the business of making money (for profit, hopefully)?
melchizidech wrote:
So let me get this straight, in order to effect change in the way Microsoft works, we are to all simultaneously go back to pen-and-paper offices, and switch off our Windows machines?
No. Start using Macs. :)
melchizidech wrote:
You do realise you managed to circularly argue against yourself there don't you?
I did? I thought my theme was consistent. :) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Well, all analogies are faulty, if you want to get right down to it.
No excuse to make a bad one.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And why shouldn't they?! I'm sure they had to pay for the space, so why would they want to screw themselves over by giving some of the space to people who are not in the business of making money (for profit, hopefully)?
My case in making this particular analogy was that no, they did not pay for the space, it is public space, a metaphor for the free market in the context of our current discussion. In denying access to the market, or making it impossible for their huge and loyal customer base to try these new oranges or even to use them in co-existence with their own, they are being by definition anti-competitive. If some guy has found a way to make oranges for free or next to nothing, why should he not undercut the established competition? Where's the free trade in that model? But I really, really would like to get away from the farmers and oranges thing now, it's not a good comparison. It just seems to me that, well, you seem to have a healthy respect for free trade and the principles of an open market, and surely you can see that the positive effects of these things are almost entirely founded on competition? With competition and complete consumer choice, you have a perfect system, almost - it regulates itself to a large extent. But it is myopic in the extreme to apply those same principles, without refinement, to the modern software market.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The EU and its regulations to support the OSS community is BS.
The freeness of open source is measured in terms of freedom not in terms of price. I admit there are loads of OSS devs who code for fun or dogma but equally there are many companies eg MySQL Redhat who run businesses on the OSS model. I would also disagree with your assertion that these people are freeloaders; I know a couple of guys who work on OSS projects in their freetime and give their work willingly and for free having worked all day and paid taxes, that to me is the antithesis of a freeloader. The argument should not be that OSS devs are protected from MS or even that MS is protected from OSS if the tables ever turn but that everyone should have a fair crack at the whip. Even in our money obsessed society, why should someone who gives their all to the community willingly be stamped on by the avarice of a corporation and its shareholders? To take your oranges example, the current state of play is that MS turn round and say: "You hippies are growing oranges to feed your communities. Your actions are detrimental to our profit margins and we're going to take your farm from you via the courts; what right do you have to steal the dividends from our shareholder's wallets?"
Marc Clifton wrote:
Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists. You can't win this argument with me, because politicians and lawmakers (law-f***-you-overs, realistically) are not serving the long-term interests of people, businesses, the environment, nor the economy they are supposed to protect. They are no less political and ego motivated than corporations. In fact, I would argue they are more motivated, because their ability to stay in office
Russell Jones wrote:
The freeness of open source is measured in terms of freedom not in terms of price.
Hmmm. So, why should people who do something "in freedom" have the same rights to protect their "free" product as those that do something for the profit of their shareholders, for the salaries of their employees, and for the taxes the gov't gets from that work? You may think that it's a silly question, but it's not. "Freedom", the freedom to do anything that doesn't improve your survivability, is a fairly new concept in society. It is actually a luxury. We now have sufficient freedom (i.e, no impact to our livelihood/survivability) to actually undermine (and get gov't to take our side) the people and businesses that are working for their livelihood. To me, those people do not have the same rights to sue those that are protecting their livelihood.
Russell Jones wrote:
there are many companies eg MySQL Redhat who run businesses on the OSS model.
Name 10, that actually pay employees. Everyone waves the MySQL banner and then assumes there must be hundreds or thousands. I certainly can't name 10. I don't take issue with how people spend their free time and develop their hobbies and interests. I do take issue with people that assume that they can then get the gov't to sue companies that have a completely different business model. Competition is based on survival. You can't compete with "free", as there's no survivability in "free", so why should "free" have any rights in competitive driven markets? Consumers can still have choice, but rights for free, when there's no business model to support that modality? No. Marc
