Listen us otherwise...MS is threathend
-
Things are not going fine for Mr.Gates,European Comission has threathend[^] to pay 2m euro per day untill MS gets agreed to give access to its systems. i wonder what kinda access is being demaned,is it applicable for OS only other products like Office which is not following Open Standards format[^] MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
I personally think all these anti-MS law suites are grossly unfair and they are done because everyone's mad Bill's making so much money. Leave the poor guy alone I say.
-
I personally think all these anti-MS law suites are grossly unfair and they are done because everyone's mad Bill's making so much money. Leave the poor guy alone I say.
-
I personally think all these anti-MS law suites are grossly unfair and they are done because everyone's mad Bill's making so much money. Leave the poor guy alone I say.
-
Antitrust laws must be applied. In a capitalist market the important thing is to protect competition, not the competitors.
Tiefe Wasser sind nicht still Fold with us! ¤ flickr
As a capitalist myself (:-D), I agree. Industry regulators must have teeth, else the system will be abused.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
Antitrust laws must be applied. In a capitalist market the important thing is to protect competition, not the competitors.
Tiefe Wasser sind nicht still Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
In a capitalist market the important thing is to protect competition, not the competitors.
At the same time, one must remember that the ultimate goal is to benefit the consumer and not simply the disgruntled competitors. I'm not 100% sure the EC (and the US before it) aren't acting as puppets for MS "competitors". Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
As a capitalist myself (:-D), I agree. Industry regulators must have teeth, else the system will be abused.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecottRegulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 11:18 Friday 23rd December, 2005
-
Things are not going fine for Mr.Gates,European Comission has threathend[^] to pay 2m euro per day untill MS gets agreed to give access to its systems. i wonder what kinda access is being demaned,is it applicable for OS only other products like Office which is not following Open Standards format[^] MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Microsoft should just pull all operations out of Europe and send them back to the Reneissance. After all, that was their peak.
-
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 11:18 Friday 23rd December, 2005
Yes, in an ideal system, companies would make and sell their products (and services), the market would judge them on merit, and the company with the best product would survive. However, in the real world, some companies use methods available only to those who are already successful to stomp on competitors before the marketplace has the chance to judge. This makes the barrier for market entry higher than it should be, and is where regulation should come in (and pretty much where it should stop). I guess what I'm saying is that I mostly agree with you, but believe that limited government regulation is ever so slightly more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation. I also recognize that, where the government is involved, "limited regulation" will always eventually become an oxymoron. By the way, I thought the creative name changes were great fun, and don't think you should stop just because someone wants to filter your messages. My wife especially liked "Stanta Claws" :).
-
Things are not going fine for Mr.Gates,European Comission has threathend[^] to pay 2m euro per day untill MS gets agreed to give access to its systems. i wonder what kinda access is being demaned,is it applicable for OS only other products like Office which is not following Open Standards format[^] MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Microsoft is an American company, the EU can go to hell. If the EU doesnt approve of the way they do things, they can make Microsoft stop doing buisness in Europe, not fine them. Bill Gates is running a legitimate buisness, and he has every right to do it the way he wants. If he doesn't want to let competitors copy his work, then that is his right. "When only the police have guns, it's called a Police State." -- modified at 11:29 Friday 23rd December, 2005
-
Microsoft should just pull all operations out of Europe and send them back to the Reneissance. After all, that was their peak.
You're absolutely right! If not for Microsoft, I'm sure the people of Europe would all be writing their programs on cave walls in berry juice. As usual, your post reflects the views of a xenophobic, reactionary crack-monkey. If Microsoft pulled their sales and support from Europe -- which is all they could do at the moment -- European companies would live with third-party support while they suffered the inconvenience and expense of transitioning to open source or Apple solutions. Probably open source. And Microsoft would lose a buttload -- metric buttload, in most countries -- of sales.
-
Yes, in an ideal system, companies would make and sell their products (and services), the market would judge them on merit, and the company with the best product would survive. However, in the real world, some companies use methods available only to those who are already successful to stomp on competitors before the marketplace has the chance to judge. This makes the barrier for market entry higher than it should be, and is where regulation should come in (and pretty much where it should stop). I guess what I'm saying is that I mostly agree with you, but believe that limited government regulation is ever so slightly more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation. I also recognize that, where the government is involved, "limited regulation" will always eventually become an oxymoron. By the way, I thought the creative name changes were great fun, and don't think you should stop just because someone wants to filter your messages. My wife especially liked "Stanta Claws" :).
vincent.reynolds wrote:
However, in the real world, some companies use methods available only to those who are already successful to stomp on competitors before the marketplace has the chance to judge.
I agree, but as we all know, those same companies can also influence the decisions of government. I have extreme doubts about government's ability to restrain itself from punishing companies that are having success competing fairly. What exactly is the measure that a government would apply to distinquish between innovation and unfairness? Government is at least as capable of being unfair as any corporation is. For the most part, I think the market is a much safer management mechanism than government is - not to say its perfect and doesn't need some occasional government attention.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
By the way, I thought the creative name changes were great fun, and don't think you should stop just because someone wants to filter your messages. My wife especially liked "Stanta Claws"
I know, but it really isn't fair to those who want to filter me. Otherwise, I need to stop responding to their posts, which I would rather not do. (After all, I am something of a fucking troll :laugh: ) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
You're absolutely right! If not for Microsoft, I'm sure the people of Europe would all be writing their programs on cave walls in berry juice. As usual, your post reflects the views of a xenophobic, reactionary crack-monkey. If Microsoft pulled their sales and support from Europe -- which is all they could do at the moment -- European companies would live with third-party support while they suffered the inconvenience and expense of transitioning to open source or Apple solutions. Probably open source. And Microsoft would lose a buttload -- metric buttload, in most countries -- of sales.
Of course they would lose sales, and they would never do that because it's a huge market. But the fact of the matter is that companies avoid doing business in countries that are hostile to them (the same goes to US states). It's bad for the country (or state or whatever) when the government is not business-friendly, because it eventually reaches a point where the efforts are not worth the return. That's what is happening in much of Latin America. If they switch to open source or Apple (:laugh:), they would suffer. Microsoft offers more than just "software" by existing. They offer a common platform that has become very high quality in recent years. That's extremely valuable from a business perspective. And yes...if not for American technology, Europe would be 100 years behind what it is now. It's not our fault they've lost their intellectual edge.
-
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 11:18 Friday 23rd December, 2005
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is.
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field? Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is.
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field? Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Corporate Welfare.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is.
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field? Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Corporate farm interests have powerful lobbyists, and make substantial campaign contributions.
-
Corporate Welfare.
Or at least it would be if subsidies actually went to the poor.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is.
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field? Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field?
We're just imitating the French...:-D Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regulated competition is something of an oxymoron. Competition is all about taking risks in a free market. Besides, the more power government has to regulate competition, the more vulnerable it is to corruption from bribes. So government regulation is no more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation is.
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field? Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
So can you explain the US Government's stand on subsidising the US farmers and continuing the uneven playing field?
I would almost say that sort of proves my point. Let government start controling an industry, and that is what you get. Government by definition cannot regulate competition, it can only eliminate it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Of course they would lose sales, and they would never do that because it's a huge market. But the fact of the matter is that companies avoid doing business in countries that are hostile to them (the same goes to US states). It's bad for the country (or state or whatever) when the government is not business-friendly, because it eventually reaches a point where the efforts are not worth the return. That's what is happening in much of Latin America. If they switch to open source or Apple (:laugh:), they would suffer. Microsoft offers more than just "software" by existing. They offer a common platform that has become very high quality in recent years. That's extremely valuable from a business perspective. And yes...if not for American technology, Europe would be 100 years behind what it is now. It's not our fault they've lost their intellectual edge.
espeir wrote:
Of course they would lose sales, and they would never do that because it's a huge market. But the fact of the matter is that companies avoid doing business in countries that are hostile to them (the same goes to US states). It's bad for the country (or state or whatever) when the government is not business-friendly, because it eventually reaches a point where the efforts are not worth the return. That's what is happening in much of Latin America.
So what you're saying is that they would never pull out of the European market, or maybe they would. I applaud your reasoning skills [golf clap]!
espeir wrote:
If they switch to open source or Apple (), they would suffer. Microsoft offers more than just "software" by existing. They offer a common platform that has become very high quality in recent years. That's extremely valuable from a business perspective.
Whether or not businesses decide to stick with the Microsoft platform depends on cost/benefit, keeping in mind that cost includes licensing and maintenance. Countries have to be business-friendly, but so does Microsoft. The home user has other considerations as well, such as malware, DRM trampling on fair use, and out-of-pocket cost. Other platforms address these concerns in different ways, and to differing degrees. Overall, for most businesses, Microsoft still has the advantage, but that could change. Most home users are better off buying a Mac.
espeir wrote:
And yes...if not for American technology, Europe would be 100 years behind what it is now. It's not our fault they've lost their intellectual edge.
I'm guessing you're not big on history, research, rational thought, or the right of neurons to assemble. Google "European inventions" sometime.
-
Microsoft is an American company, the EU can go to hell. If the EU doesnt approve of the way they do things, they can make Microsoft stop doing buisness in Europe, not fine them. Bill Gates is running a legitimate buisness, and he has every right to do it the way he wants. If he doesn't want to let competitors copy his work, then that is his right. "When only the police have guns, it's called a Police State." -- modified at 11:29 Friday 23rd December, 2005