Re: 497 million euro fine for Microsoft
From: Dr. Dweeb (dr_at_dweeb.com)
Date: 12/23/04
- Next message: david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: TCPIP: SMTP - setting HELO value ?"
- Previous message: Chris Scheers: "Re: Heirarchal network question"
- In reply to: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply: "Re: 497 million euro fine for Microsoft"
- Next in thread: Bob Koehler: "Re: 497 million euro fine for Microsoft"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:34:57 +0100
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> In article <cqcasg$o4u$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk
> <munk@home.nl> writes:
>
>> Today Microsoft got a fine of 497 million euro (US $650 million)
>> from the European Court. The reason is misuse of monopoly position
>> etc. Furthermore M$ has to remove Mediaplayer from the Windows-XP
>> distribution, and publish the API's for communication with
>> periphirals. Nice ......
>
> I don't like Microsoft software due to the low quality, so I simply
> don't use it. I don't really see the point of the proceedings,
> though. Why shouldn't anyone be able to offer anything---say an OS
> with a web browser and media player integrated---take it or leave it.
It is the notion of "bundling" and is illegal for monopolies. This is a
pretty simple legal concept even for an astrophysicist !
The MS OS is a monopoly. Anyone wishing to provide ANY product on top of
this OS is at the mercy of MS. MS did not get US$60B in the bank by
behaving in a friendly or legal manner to either the consumers, its partners
or its competitors. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Putting companies out of business by screwing with the underlying OS
("MS-DOS is not finished until Lotus 1-2-3 will not run") has been the
standard behaviour of the Microsoft corporation for decades. Now that they
are legally a monopolist (ie. convicted of illegal monopolistic activities),
they can no longer bundle things like WMP in order to screw RealPlayer or
anyone else tring to exist in the media player segment.
> As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the web browser and
> media player are intentionally unnecessarily integratated into the OS
> to the point where alternatives can't be installed. If you don't
> like it, don't buy it.
>
> By requiring Microsoft to publish their specifications and offer a
> version of Windows without media player, the courts are in fact
> confirming that Microsoft software IS the de-facto standard.
No, it is saying that Microsoft is a Monopoly - something completely
different. Forcing disclosure simply levels the playing field somewhat for
other market participants.
> I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't think it is the business of the
courts to
> tell the world that, for better or worse, the world has to live with
> Microsoft.
Well, actually it is. Monopolies, both in the US and Europe (and most
western nations) must behave within a much stricter set of rules than other
companies. Again, the concepts are simple and the reasons obvious.
We have to live with them now, and the courts have to insure that other
companies wishing to enter (or stay/survive) in the same marketplace are not
disadvantaged.
Monopolies are (at least in the US), deemed by legal definition to be
negative for the consumer and their actions are restricted because of this.
Summa Summarium: The reasons for the European courts decision are sound and
just
Dr. Dweeb
- Next message: david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: TCPIP: SMTP - setting HELO value ?"
- Previous message: Chris Scheers: "Re: Heirarchal network question"
- In reply to: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply: "Re: 497 million euro fine for Microsoft"
- Next in thread: Bob Koehler: "Re: 497 million euro fine for Microsoft"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
