Regulators back EC Microsoft ruling
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: The thing is, a ruling of even a billion dollars isn't going to matter to Microsoft, not enough to make them change their ways. Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I feel for Microsoft in this case, an innovative, high tech company trying to do business in predominantly socialist Europe. If there isn't a state sanctioned version of Linux coming soon in many European countries I'll be very surprised. After all there are endless tax dollars available to spend any way the governments feel is best for their wards taxpayers.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeJohn Cardinal wrote: Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I don't believe so. The big issue has always been that people should be given choices, and I agree. The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. In these cases, people just want something that does what they need. They want to watch videos or play music, then a player should be bundled. Windows is an OS for every level of user. If people do know a floppy from their ars, then they probably know they have choices and can download Winamp or RealOne or anything else. It's not like Windows prevents the installation of these packages. I think providing a player on Windows is a good idea, especially for those that don't know any better. If people do know better, then they can opt for a different player. At least both types of people get what they need to do what they want. This just goes to show how government mandates aren't really geared for the people, but for many other reasons. If, for instance, the EU mandates that Microsoft must provide an alternative player in base Windows installation, can you imagine how much AOL (Winamp...still?) and Real Networks (and any others, like Apple though QT does pretty much suck for most non-QT content) might "contribute" to the EU to get their's to be the one that gets installed? If I remember to put my tin foil hat on today I'm sure I could list many other reaons that the government is more interested in how this affects them rather than they people they are supposed to serve.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: The thing is, a ruling of even a billion dollars isn't going to matter to Microsoft, not enough to make them change their ways. Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I feel for Microsoft in this case, an innovative, high tech company trying to do business in predominantly socialist Europe. If there isn't a state sanctioned version of Linux coming soon in many European countries I'll be very surprised. After all there are endless tax dollars available to spend any way the governments feel is best for their wards taxpayers.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeAre you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? Yes, and so does the U.S. Department of Justice! The thing is, fines imposed on Microsoft in the States have merely been pittances thus far, with no real connection to the damage caused. The mandated splitting of Microsoft into multiple companies was also a joke; it didn't make it any harder for them to employ strong-arm tactics, except that the government now supposedly has a little more insight into their affairs. Look at the unfolding SCO mess, and imagine how much goes on behind the scenes that DOESN'T result in a DOJ lawsuit. Not to be didactic, but the concept of punishment is important to every major modern justice system. It was true under Communist Russia, it's true in Europe, and it's true here. This means that if I steal someone's purse but then give it back of my own accord, I'm still required to make further restitution because of the crime I've committed; it's not enough to undo a wrong. In the case of Microsoft, fining them over a hundred million dollars (as in the U.S.) or even a billion (as may happen in Europe) doesn't go all the way to ameliorating the initial wrongs they've committed. The money will most likely not go to the parties that suffered at Microsoft's hands, and the loss won't impair their operations in any appreciable way. They can easily view even a billion-dollar lawsuit as the cost of doing business; that's the sort of edge that their tactics have given them. I never called them stupid, just unsavory. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
John Cardinal wrote: Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I don't believe so. The big issue has always been that people should be given choices, and I agree. The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. In these cases, people just want something that does what they need. They want to watch videos or play music, then a player should be bundled. Windows is an OS for every level of user. If people do know a floppy from their ars, then they probably know they have choices and can download Winamp or RealOne or anything else. It's not like Windows prevents the installation of these packages. I think providing a player on Windows is a good idea, especially for those that don't know any better. If people do know better, then they can opt for a different player. At least both types of people get what they need to do what they want. This just goes to show how government mandates aren't really geared for the people, but for many other reasons. If, for instance, the EU mandates that Microsoft must provide an alternative player in base Windows installation, can you imagine how much AOL (Winamp...still?) and Real Networks (and any others, like Apple though QT does pretty much suck for most non-QT content) might "contribute" to the EU to get their's to be the one that gets installed? If I remember to put my tin foil hat on today I'm sure I could list many other reaons that the government is more interested in how this affects them rather than they people they are supposed to serve.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
I agree wholeheartedly. It's really a temptest in a teacup as far as I can see. Why should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action when in reality it's only of benefit to said taxpayer?
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? Yes, and so does the U.S. Department of Justice! The thing is, fines imposed on Microsoft in the States have merely been pittances thus far, with no real connection to the damage caused. The mandated splitting of Microsoft into multiple companies was also a joke; it didn't make it any harder for them to employ strong-arm tactics, except that the government now supposedly has a little more insight into their affairs. Look at the unfolding SCO mess, and imagine how much goes on behind the scenes that DOESN'T result in a DOJ lawsuit. Not to be didactic, but the concept of punishment is important to every major modern justice system. It was true under Communist Russia, it's true in Europe, and it's true here. This means that if I steal someone's purse but then give it back of my own accord, I'm still required to make further restitution because of the crime I've committed; it's not enough to undo a wrong. In the case of Microsoft, fining them over a hundred million dollars (as in the U.S.) or even a billion (as may happen in Europe) doesn't go all the way to ameliorating the initial wrongs they've committed. The money will most likely not go to the parties that suffered at Microsoft's hands, and the loss won't impair their operations in any appreciable way. They can easily view even a billion-dollar lawsuit as the cost of doing business; that's the sort of edge that their tactics have given them. I never called them stupid, just unsavory. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
But the whole issue revolves around Microsoft including a free media player software with their operating system. Where is the wrong in that? As a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? As a computer user you have a choice if you feel some other software is better you can pay for it or use the free software included. Where is the damage there? It's up to the others to make compelling software that people *want* to buy. What you are in effect defending is a policy that says users can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and they certainly do not deserve good quality free software to be included with the purchase of an operating system. A little indefensible isn't it? Or do you work for REAL?;)
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
I agree wholeheartedly. It's really a temptest in a teacup as far as I can see. Why should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action when in reality it's only of benefit to said taxpayer?
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeWhy should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action It looks like it's going to be profitable for them, though! It therefore can't qualify as a WASTE of taxpayers' money. You can fairly call it inappropriate or wrong, but not that. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Why should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action It looks like it's going to be profitable for them, though! It therefore can't qualify as a WASTE of taxpayers' money. You can fairly call it inappropriate or wrong, but not that. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: Why should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action It looks like it's going to be profitable for them, though! It therefore can't qualify as a WASTE of taxpayers' money. You can fairly call it inappropriate or wrong, but not that. Ahhh! There! You said it! So what we have here is really just an extortion scam to raise money so that the EU authorities can pursue other extortion scams. If you are an American citizen, why are you not up in arms about this outrageous extortion attempt by foreign governments on legitimate U.S. corporations that are world leaders in innovation and technology only to be cut down at the knees by foreigners?
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
Mike.NET wrote: Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. You said it man! Normally I would say "only in Europe" to an issue like this but unfortunately we've seen that it can happen in the good old USA as well, the supposed home of entrepenurial spirit.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
Mike.NET wrote: How will MS get our of this [^] one? Bribery tends to work best with European Commissioners ;-) Instead of bundling the program into its Windows operating system as Microsoft does at present, the Commission is expected to demand that the company sells two versions of Windows to PC manufacturers: one with Media Player and one with the program stripped out. Hmm. Guess which version will sell more. What at stupid idea! Best plan. Make MS ship the Real Codec and any other of the big media streamers who are whining. (It'll mean I don't need to install that spyware crap just to view / listen to stuff on the BBC web-site.) the Commission also wants to force Microsoft to share enough secret code in Windows with rivals in order to allow them to design server software that works as smoothly with the ubiquitous operating system as Microsoft's own server software. I don't understand this. What are we missing? Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
-
But the whole issue revolves around Microsoft including a free media player software with their operating system. Where is the wrong in that? As a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? As a computer user you have a choice if you feel some other software is better you can pay for it or use the free software included. Where is the damage there? It's up to the others to make compelling software that people *want* to buy. What you are in effect defending is a policy that says users can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and they certainly do not deserve good quality free software to be included with the purchase of an operating system. A little indefensible isn't it? Or do you work for REAL?;)
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeAs a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? Actually, it appears to be compulsory on Windows XP. At least, I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, although I certainly tried. I didn't go about uninstalling it because I'm a Microsoft-hating jerk, but because I was worried about the increasing number of security holes opened up by WMP, especially the possibilities for active scripting in .WMV codecs. To this day, if I accidentally click on a link to a .WMV file, even though that file type has no associations, WMP 9 will launch. Yet when I go to Windows Update on the web, it's listed as one of the things I can choose to install. I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive. Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Mike.NET wrote: How will MS get our of this [^] one? Bribery tends to work best with European Commissioners ;-) Instead of bundling the program into its Windows operating system as Microsoft does at present, the Commission is expected to demand that the company sells two versions of Windows to PC manufacturers: one with Media Player and one with the program stripped out. Hmm. Guess which version will sell more. What at stupid idea! Best plan. Make MS ship the Real Codec and any other of the big media streamers who are whining. (It'll mean I don't need to install that spyware crap just to view / listen to stuff on the BBC web-site.) the Commission also wants to force Microsoft to share enough secret code in Windows with rivals in order to allow them to design server software that works as smoothly with the ubiquitous operating system as Microsoft's own server software. I don't understand this. What are we missing? Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't understand this. What are we missing? The EU is flexing their arms to try to force Microsoft to go open-source. Whatever your stance on open source is, it takes money to put food on the table and a roof over your head. Trying to force a company to be open source when they do have their IP to protect (what they spends $$$ in R&D) is wrong. I mean, why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Most companies built on OSS have gone down the toilet. It's only big businesses like IBM with other sources of captial that can afford to open some of their code. What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government?
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
As a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? Actually, it appears to be compulsory on Windows XP. At least, I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, although I certainly tried. I didn't go about uninstalling it because I'm a Microsoft-hating jerk, but because I was worried about the increasing number of security holes opened up by WMP, especially the possibilities for active scripting in .WMV codecs. To this day, if I accidentally click on a link to a .WMV file, even though that file type has no associations, WMP 9 will launch. Yet when I go to Windows Update on the web, it's listed as one of the things I can choose to install. I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive. Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Jeff Varszegi wrote: I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive We can agree there! Although you forgot to add that it's crappy in addition to be intrusive. Jeff Varszegi wrote: Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? :-D Nice try!
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
Jeff Varszegi wrote: Why should the EU be spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take this action It looks like it's going to be profitable for them, though! It therefore can't qualify as a WASTE of taxpayers' money. You can fairly call it inappropriate or wrong, but not that. Ahhh! There! You said it! So what we have here is really just an extortion scam to raise money so that the EU authorities can pursue other extortion scams. If you are an American citizen, why are you not up in arms about this outrageous extortion attempt by foreign governments on legitimate U.S. corporations that are world leaders in innovation and technology only to be cut down at the knees by foreigners?
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeI admire your style quite a bit, but not enough to change my opinion. :) Let me ask this: how many successful lawsuits must there be against Microsoft for you to decide that they may be doing something illegal? I mean, Microsoft has ace lawyers and they're still losing these lawsuits, with the whole world watching. There's no funny business going on, no extortion scam; it's just that they're being found over and over to conduct illegal activity. I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Jeff Varszegi wrote: I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive We can agree there! Although you forgot to add that it's crappy in addition to be intrusive. Jeff Varszegi wrote: Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? :-D Nice try!
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeBut that's what the EC is saying: that by doing so they were being monopolistic. What's so different between WMP and software X, also provided for free and bundled with the OS, that does result in the hypothetical monopoly (the possibility of which you've just allowed)? Thank you. Jeff Varszegi
-
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't understand this. What are we missing? The EU is flexing their arms to try to force Microsoft to go open-source. Whatever your stance on open source is, it takes money to put food on the table and a roof over your head. Trying to force a company to be open source when they do have their IP to protect (what they spends $$$ in R&D) is wrong. I mean, why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Most companies built on OSS have gone down the toilet. It's only big businesses like IBM with other sources of captial that can afford to open some of their code. What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government?
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government? Don't get me started on what is wrong the with EU :mad: The European Commissioners will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
-
John Cardinal wrote: Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I don't believe so. The big issue has always been that people should be given choices, and I agree. The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. In these cases, people just want something that does what they need. They want to watch videos or play music, then a player should be bundled. Windows is an OS for every level of user. If people do know a floppy from their ars, then they probably know they have choices and can download Winamp or RealOne or anything else. It's not like Windows prevents the installation of these packages. I think providing a player on Windows is a good idea, especially for those that don't know any better. If people do know better, then they can opt for a different player. At least both types of people get what they need to do what they want. This just goes to show how government mandates aren't really geared for the people, but for many other reasons. If, for instance, the EU mandates that Microsoft must provide an alternative player in base Windows installation, can you imagine how much AOL (Winamp...still?) and Real Networks (and any others, like Apple though QT does pretty much suck for most non-QT content) might "contribute" to the EU to get their's to be the one that gets installed? If I remember to put my tin foil hat on today I'm sure I could list many other reaons that the government is more interested in how this affects them rather than they people they are supposed to serve.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. You gave a new meaning to the "Insert a floppy disk on drive A:" message! :omg: :wtf: Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Jeff Varszegi wrote: I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive We can agree there! Although you forgot to add that it's crappy in addition to be intrusive. Jeff Varszegi wrote: Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? :-D Nice try!
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeJohn Cardinal wrote: Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Ack - logic error: if it is a part of the OS, then *by definition* they are forcing you to use it. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
Heath Stewart wrote: The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. You gave a new meaning to the "Insert a floppy disk on drive A:" message! :omg: :wtf: Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
Well, I guess it's good that ZIP disks are all but dead! :eek:
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
Reading this thread, there seem to be good points for all sides here. I think the big issue is that Microsoft is essentially a monopoly. Pointless analogy disclaimer: Right now, Coke, Pepsi, and other beverage companies all compete. You can go into a grocery store and have your choice of, say, Coke, Pepsi, or many other beverages. Now, let's say the Coke company has 95% share of the beverage market. They could pretty easily make demands on the store owners, saying "You can only sell our product if you don't sell any of the competitor's products.", thus solidifying their monopoly. If they wanted to enter other markets (say, hot dogs), they could in theory use the same tactics to gain market share in other markets, simply by leveraging their existing monopoly. This tactic of Microsoft's is what is getting everyone all riled up IMHO. Individual products should live or die based on their own merits, not just becuase Microsoft makes something and embeds it into the OS. Does it really make sense to embed streaming media in the OS? Sure, most *consumers* probably use it, but most business users probalby don't. But it isn't an option, it's always there, you can't get rid of it. Granted, in this particular case, RealPlayer is not a good example of a "better" program being squashed... I think we are all in agreement that if RealPlayer went away, nobody would really mind... X| Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
But the whole issue revolves around Microsoft including a free media player software with their operating system. Where is the wrong in that? As a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? As a computer user you have a choice if you feel some other software is better you can pay for it or use the free software included. Where is the damage there? It's up to the others to make compelling software that people *want* to buy. What you are in effect defending is a policy that says users can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and they certainly do not deserve good quality free software to be included with the purchase of an operating system. A little indefensible isn't it? Or do you work for REAL?;)
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeAs someone pointed out in one of the other messages, it is about socialist Europe. Please consider the following points: 1. The services business is just starting up, and the media player might play a big role in this. ...like Apple iTunes. 2. If the bundled media player is acceptable, many people will not want to download and install even a better and free media player. 3. It is up to the individual countries to decide on how they regulate business. Some are protectionist; others are not. As long as existing treaties are not violated, it is ok to say anything. If the people of the particular region does not like it, they can pressure their government. If a majority of the Europeans feel that way, they could challenge the EU decision; but this is too trivial for the people to be bothered. 4. Was this not the same case with IE v/s Netscape? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I admire your style quite a bit, but not enough to change my opinion. :) Let me ask this: how many successful lawsuits must there be against Microsoft for you to decide that they may be doing something illegal? I mean, Microsoft has ace lawyers and they're still losing these lawsuits, with the whole world watching. There's no funny business going on, no extortion scam; it's just that they're being found over and over to conduct illegal activity. I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Honestly, I've always seen a leading innovator being attacked because it's the front runner and therefore most worth attacking. It's just like formula 1 racing. Ferrari is the dominant team and has been for several years now. I'm not a fan of Ferrari, but I would not accept any rule changes that are contemplated specifically to force Ferrari to do worse and "level" the playing field. It's up to the other teams to pick up their game. That's the heart of a free democratic capitalist society.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde