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
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
-
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
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
Looks like we're now getting into the real points of the argument! It's a very good point and I guess it boils down to whether you believe that money should be the thing by which everything is valued. At some point in my lifetime it became more important to earn money and to advertise that you had the money than it was to help others and be a benefit to the community. It's not the producers of free software that the government is protecting, it's the right of people and other businesses to use that software. This in turn may allow those businesses to pay more taxes, employ more people etc. if you need a purely financial justification.
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
Let's see: Redhat IBM Sun MySQL Mozilla Transgaming Enomalism Scyld JasperSoft SugarCRM I hope that's a good spread across different market segments. Don't forget some of the big names that earn fortunes based on the LAMP stack: amazon booking.com ebay Companies with huge shareholder value (for the moment at least) Facebook MySpace Companies that use OSS as part of their products, (embedded linux) Linksys F5 Checkpoint Russell
-
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.
Actually I don't think ant-americanism is the undercurrent here - more likelysocialism tax harmonisation. Microsoft's main base in EMEA is in Ireland where they take advantage of this state's lower corporation tax rates. The EU want all countries to have the same (uncompetitive) corporation tax rates and as this fine is all going to come out of EMEA declared profit, the EU has basically transferred $1.5B from the Irish exchequer to the ECB.
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
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
When they were ordered to sell Windows XP minus media player MS tried to call it what it was: "Windows without Media Player" or something like that and they were told off by the EU - hence they came up with Windows XP N instead. God knows what its says on the box. Do you know any consumer who has actually requested XP N?
Kevin
-
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
It would be a sneaky way for the EU to prevent Microsoft from buying Yahoo - by taking funds that would have gone towards the purchase. :suss:
Steve
-
off topic: what about "your" politicians, who started the war in Iraq and to date have not found any chemical weapons(the second war "reason" after the Iraqi petrol)?
What most people in the world do not realize. We get to vote, yes, nobody said it counted though. Once in office they do as they please. For most of us when voting we try to pick the candidate that will do the least to us and the most for us. In some cases that even backfires.