Neowin.net

Yeah, the difference is that the EU were strict whilst the DoJ case just collapsed... I think the main reason the EU gets so much flak is because the DoJ is completely impotent against a monopoly, whilst the EU hasn't backed down. *shrugs*

That may be because Microsoft threathened to move to Canada. But they can't move from EU...:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...76&cid=15106659
Microsoft uses Ireland as a base to filter billions of dollars every year (Through a wholly owned obscure subsidiary), through a solicitors office in Dublin. That office controls all license revenue from Asia, Europe and Africa. On average they contribute $50 per person per year to Irish economy, with our low corporation tax rates. The EU has FULL legislative power over this, what represents a huge chunk, if not more than 50% of MSFT's business, so unlike South Korea, Microsoft could not just leave (like they threatened to move to Canada), as most of their Intellectual Property rights are based here in Ireland. The E.U. probably holds the most power over Microsoft then any legislator in the world, its all whether they are bman enough to make Microsoft pay for their crimes.....

Here I am. What can I do for you?

Exactly what I was wondering. I guess it's not a problem if US itself punishes Microsoft, since of course everything is done right there while we in Europe, who still live with dragons in dark ages, don't know sh*t about things. So humorous

definite lack of 'haters' in this thread compared to the previous EU thread. Bit of bias? ('course not)

MS isn't offering the licenses. It refuses to document all the hidden crap it has in the Windows API that give its own apps an advantage. E.g. WMP can stream WMV files that 3rd party players cannot.

A protocol can't be an Intellectual Property. Besides, Microsoft has utilized a standardized and open hardware platform (PC platform, and ethernet/ip technology: INTERNET) and tries to make it theirs, and try to use their Desktop monopoly to take over the Server market.

Again, I quote slashdot:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...76&cid=15106987
Don't let them get away with such a crass generalisation. A protocol can not be patented because it is not an invention; it can not be copyrighted because it is not a creative or artistic work; it can not be a trade secret because it is disclosed when software implementing the protocol is given to someone else; and it is impossible to trademark because it's not a ... trade mark.

Putting aside the French attempt to create a new form of Intellectual property (the DRM right), is there any other form of IP I have missed?



http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...76&cid=15106692
"Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights"
"technologically innovative" - nonsence all you are about here is needlessly duplication open protocols so as to get locking on the entire Internet.
"Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities .. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market"
Vinod Valloppillil Nov 1998 [catb.org]
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html


See here where you tried to claim ownership of TCP/IP hrough the tried and
tested method of co-mingling functionality er .. polluting the protocols.
Blunk pointed out that Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights over "a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license." "Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC [request for comment] documents, including but not limited to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications," he said in his note.
Larry J. Blunk, Merit Network Inc. Nov 2004 [eweek.com]
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,17146...3119TX1K0000594

Last edited by GamblerFEXonlin on 14 May 2006 - 06:08

Please take a course in microeconomics. Energy companies are known as a natural monoploy. A natural monoploy is an industry where being successful in the industry can only come about by being a monopoly.

For example, if an energy company lays lines to every house in Austin. It is within their right not to sell those lines to anyone else.

The government heavily regulates energy companies.

a natural monopoly is just as bad as any other. they wont let anyone else become successful becuase no one else can put lines in untill their contract is up. they can now also lie and cheat their customers, becuase where else can they go?
"A natural monoploy is an industry where being successful in the industry can only come about by being a monopoly." well, that being said, alot of industries should beable to be a monopoly then, becuase without being the only one there, alot of businesses cant become successful. sort of a hypcritic kind of statement i just read....

I don't think you understand.

Lets go back to basics. Why is a monopoly bad? Because they cause higher prices to the consumer due to the lack of competing firms. However, a natural monopoly is a special case of monopoly where prices are actually LOWER because there is only one firm operating in an area. This is a case where the cost per unit is lowest when there is only one company in an industry among other industries experiencing economies of scale.

We can even look historical evidence. When the government gave into political pressure and deregulated energy in California and forced energy companies to sell lines to other companies, what happened? Prices went up and brown outs went up. Now, the government is going to re-regulate California's energy companies again. Prices go down. Quality goes up.

Some have argued that operating systems are similar. You need to have an dominate OS so that developers can produce one version of a piece of software that they know will work on 90% of consumer's computers. Imagine if there were 10 different operating systems that each owned 10% of the OS market. If you were writing software, you would need to spend tons of extra money and time to ensure that your software works on all the OSes. I don't know if these is true, but it has been brough up a lot by my Econ professor.

As unusual as it may sound, in some cases, a Monopoly increases efficency.

yes i understand it all, but what the electric company is doing down here is saying one thing, leaving something important out, then saying (and this is what i was told, word from word by the headguy) ," It doesnt matter what we tell you, we have strict guidelines, and if we fail to mention something important, its not our problem." that then leads me to believe that the monopoly is becoming to full of its self and to powerfull and needs to get some competition so that it will stop lieing and deceiving its customers. I have already filled with the attorney generals office about what they have lied to me about, and there are currently 3 investigations going on about the company now. i know its alittle off topic, but i have to vent somehow

I don't see anything about fines in this article. The greedy EU just wants money while the DoJ is more focused on making sure Microsoft is following the previous court rulings.

A blind man could see how biased you are. But anyway, how exactly do you think you can force someone to obey rules/law? You know a better way? Do share it with us and the rest of the world, you'll be a Nobel price winner in no time. There are no fines mentioned, true, but anyone that's not 5 or less knows that 2 more years means 2 more years of watching every move MS makes...and if they try to do dirty business again, guess what's coming then? You've guessed it (probably not, though): fines.

Get off your high horse and buy a copy of Windows N.

I'd never use Windows OS again on my machine even if it was free. They'll have to earn my trust again and change their attitude toward customers.

Of course I am biased. The above was my opinion. Duh. Didn't realize I had to preface every post I write with "IMO." My bad for assuming people on the internet had common sense.

The DoJ just wants two more years of keeping their eye on the situation. No mention of fines. If MS continues it's current course of action, there will be no need for fines. I don't see what your problem is.

"how exactly do you think you can force someone to obey rules/law?"

Um, how about ban it's sale?

Now where is that Noble Prize you promised me?

"how exactly do you think you can force someone to obey rules/law?"

if you broke the law, you should pay for it.