Microsoft fined by EU

[supernovafan]

For those on this board who can not fathom how dangerously close Microsoft is to becoming a true monopoly, it appears that the EU disagrees with you, they have MS labeled as a "virtual monopoly". This was out today on the BBC, it's apparently a continuation of this report.

[Rez.]

As a European, The EU can kiss my ass. While they cluck over the fact that Microsoft has to offer an OS without a Media Player to give other players a chance. Apple is allowed to offer an OS with it's own Media Player, Address Book, Widget System, ... etc.

 

They seem to be having alot of fun doing it and making a nice profit to boot. When I read about there last anti-trust lawsuit, I had just finished watching an Episode of "I'm Alan Partridge" using VLC and was listening to a few tunes in Winamp.

 

At the end of the day, Microsoft can either comply, Fight it or pull out of Europe. Just like we can all, you know, Stop using Microsoft products. But I forgot, we're living in a kinda Monopoly that prevents us from doing so.

[Lostgame]

lol. Okay, so, what do the MS fanboys here have to say about this?

[Guest Ramm]

The links don't work for Ramm

 

BTW, do you mean EU as in European Union or End-User? XD

[supernovafan]

The links don't work for Ramm

 

BTW, do you mean EU as in European Union or End-User? XD

 

EU as in European Union.

[Alessandro17]

At the end of the day, Microsoft can... pull out of Europe.

 

I wish they did. It is absolutely preposterous that the richest economic area in the world must depend upon an American monopoly for its operating systems.

But don't worry, M$ is not going to do that. They will keep their old practices instead, of bribing everybody they can.

 

Disclaimer: no anti-Americanism at all is meant in this post. Only strong dislike for *every* greedy monopoly, including the ones in my own country.

[sandmanfvrga]

Man Rez, don't you see what they are doing? I agree with the EU. Microsoft needs their asses kicked and they see Microsoft overcharging, again, and they are not putting up with it. They know what Microsoft does and they are making them act right or ship the hell out. They don't do things to Apple cause Apple isn't like Microsoft. I really am blown away by your comments, cause right now, EU is only ones with balls enough to give Microsoft the finger and not back down.

[Rez.]

It's a sad day when Governments start to dictate how much a company can charge, What they can offer and what they can and can't do with their own product. That's what a free market is setup to do. I guess the EU's actions will be met with cheers, atleast untill they slap a Half Billion dollar fine on Apple unless they open OS X up to all platforms ...

[Guest Ramm]

I wish they did. It is absolutely preposterous that the richest economic area in the world must depend upon an American monopoly for its operating systems.

But don't worry, M$ is not going to do that. They will keep their old practices instead, of bribing everybody they can.

 

Disclaimer: no anti-Americanism at all is meant in this post. Only strong dislike for *every* greedy monopoly, including the ones in my own country.

 

 

I live in America and I like Europe much better

[sandmanfvrga]

No Rez, governments need some power or they aren't a government. i don't like a government to run everyhting, that would be communistic, but governments that have some control can stand up for it's citizens and stop things. I really don't see the reason you are upset, less expensive software is a good thing. I wish the USA where I live would kick Microsoft in the ass.

[Alessandro17]

It's a sad day when Governments start to dictate how much a company can charge, What they can offer and what they can and can't do with their own product. That's what a free market is setup to do.

 

Rez

 

I don't know in which country you live (you say you are European), but you have a very funny idea of capitalism.

A capitalism where essential services are run by monopolies and governments do not intervene on prices and conditions, can only turn absolutely evil.

Italy has been very bad from this point of view. We have the most expensive electricity in Europe, and used to have very expensive telephone and internet services.

I suppose you don't have to pay bills either, otherwise you would think differently.

[Rez.]

@Sandman

 

I'm sorry if I conveyed the feeling that I was upset. I'm not. How could I be, it's the weekend. Governments do need a certain amount

of authority to do their job properly, I agree with you. The Government's job however, Is not to intervene with the Free Market. Atleast in a Capatalistic system. That is the very purpose of a free market. This is all basic Economics and I really don't know how to make it any

simpler for you. Perhaps a trip to Wikipedia??

 

@Allesandro

 

You suppose wrong, I do have to pay my bills, Thank you for the concern though. To clarify I am English (Although I currently reside in

Canada). You may think I have a strange notion of Capitalism. I myself believe you have none at all. I also wasn't aware that

Microsoft products were considered "Essential Services" In Italy. I'll ask my Wife later on, She is Itallian. As a side note, You'll

usually find that when Essential Services do become monopolized, It's mostly because a Government backed up one particular

company against all the rest, making it almost impossible for them to compete.

[Alessandro17]

I also wasn't aware that

Microsoft products were considered "Essential Services" In Italy.

 

It is very simple. Computers need operating systems in order to work. Microsoft has (almost) a monopoly of operating systems. Computers are used everywhere and when they stop working a lot of other things stop working too. Thus I suppose they could be considered as "essential services"

However mine was a reply to a broader statement you made:

 

It's a sad day when Governments start to dictate how much a company can charge, What they can offer and what they can and can't do with their own product. That's what a free market is setup to do.

 

According to the above it is OK for an electricity or water company to charge more than most people can afford.

[MadDoggyca]

Furthermore consumers demand "bundled" solutions - all-inclusive software packages that feature basic things like media players - says Microsoft, and don't want the pain of having to download or buy everything separately.

 

----------------------------------

 

witch is ture I reathern ot havwe to pay or hunt down spret things that sohuld be consider stander into days world.... also I would hate to see apple haveto be foruced ot remove there Spot Light and there Media stuff becuz people can't stand to lose?

Edited March 3, 2007 by MadDoggyca

[Rez.]

I agree. Computers do need Operating Systems to work. It's a good job their is more than one Operating System

to choose from. You may consider an Operating System an essential service - That doesn't make it so. As I mentioned to

someone else in another thread, You can't kind of have a monopoly. You either have one or you don't. As long as their are

viable alternatives ....

 

 

According to the above it is OK for an electricity or water company to charge more than most people can afford.

 

 

In the cases of companies that provide these services, A free market will create competition that will drive down prices. If the entire

nation of Italy is served by only one privately owned company that serves water and one privately owned company that serves

Electricity - Then I feel sorry for Italians. They have a short sighted Government that didn't mind taking the money when privatizing,

But are now whining because the prices have gone up. Reality check, Companies are in it for the money.

 

Furthermore consumers demand "bundled" solutions - all-inclusive software packages that feature basic things like media players - says Microsoft, and don't want the pain of having to download or buy everything separately.

 

No one has yet replied to what they think of Apple bundling literally everything a user would need to run a Computer. Perhaps they shouldn't

be included because they Think Different. Let's give those other Apple developers a chance to get their software on the desktop.

[Superhai]

No one has yet replied to what they think of Apple bundling literally everything a user would need to run a Computer. Perhaps they shouldn't

be included because they Think Different. Let's give those other Apple developers a chance to get their software on the desktop.

 

There is a huge difference from apples marginal market share to microsoft. And that is why apple can do whatever, they aren't threatning anyone. On the other hand is the media player or web browser part of the OS, the core os?

[sandmanfvrga]

"Free Market" is a great thing, but also in a free market, you shouldn't have price gouging, monopolies etc. Who better to police this than the government of said country? Makes sense to me.

[supernovafan]

You'll usually find that when Essential Services do become monopolized, It's mostly because a Government backed up one particular company against all the rest, making it almost impossible for them to compete.

Please provide an example. I don't know of one, at least not here in the US.

 

The Government's job however, Is not to intervene with the Free Market. Atleast in a Capatalistic system. That is the very purpose of a free market. This is all basic Economics and I really don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

As a side note, what say you about the US government's intervention to bailout airlines from bankruptcy? This happened after 9/11 and it involved Delta, American, US Airways and others, and in other occasions before 9/11 as well. Following your logic, it would have been better to let these airlines go bankrupt. The funny thing is, these very same airlines, I'm sure, would agree with you.

 

Also as another side note, and I don't know if this is popular in Canada or in Europe. But here in the US, professional sports teams routinely get local and state governments to build them stadiums, ostensibly because they cannot be profitable otherwise. Yet these very same sports teams can afford to pay their athletes ludicrous contracts. Now there's a worthy way to spend tax payer dollars, way to go free market economy!

 

As I mentioned to someone else in another thread, You can't kind of have a monopoly. You either have one or you don't.

That is your opinion and from it we can conclude that you do not regard that Microsoft is a monopoly. However, I have pointed out one notable source in this thread who disagrees, and while I'm at it, the US government has already concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly, you can take "a trip to wikipedia" and search for "US V Microsoft" if you want to find out more.

[solaar]

I'd rather have a government dictate one company than one company dictate whole markets, so-called 'free' markets that is.

Edited March 5, 2007 by solaar

[Ryanrule]

i hope you dont mean that.

 

 

 

 

damndable apple fanbois here obviously, and OMZ M$ IZ TEH EV!LZZZ!! and such, but the eu is just being a a big pain is the ass lately, and trying to suck more money out of microsoft.

 

 

and then there is the europe is the pinnacle of society and america is a fat trashhole people. yeah i dont think so. i mean need i even mention the younger british generation? or the french beginning to outlaw freedom of the press except for govt approved sources? tut {censored}in tut.

[Rez.]

@Superhai

 

Lol, String up the big boy, But let the little guy off for doing the exact same thing. Let's hope any business you ever get off the ground never grows beyond small enterprise.

 

 

@sandmanfvrga

 

It seems we're just going around in a loop here. The very role of a Government is to make sure that Companies are regulated within the confines of a Free Market, Not to tamper with the free market. We both agree on the former, It seems you don't agree on the later. We don't agree that Microsoft is a kinda Monopoly that should somehow be treated differently because it is bigger than the so called competition. I'm sure you weren't using the term 'Price Gouging' in it's strict, Legal sense of the term. I would say you are using it in a more colloquial manner - You Simply feel the price is too high. In which case, Use the tools provided in a free market - Stop buying their products.

 

 

 

@Supernovafan

 

Please provide an example. I don't know of one, at least not here in the US.

British Telecom?

 

As a side note, what say you about the US government's intervention to bailout airlines from bankruptcy? This happened after 9/11 and it involved Delta, American, US Airways and others, and in other occasions before 9/11 as well. Following your logic, it would have been better to let these airlines go bankrupt. The funny thing is, these very same airlines, I'm sure, would agree with you.

 

The short answer to that is, I hope you as a US taxpayer atleast got one free ticket as a thank you for your role in such a generous gift. The long answer you'll find in these two link (Feel free to google for more) Link (1) Link (2)

 

 

Also as another side note, and I don't know if this is popular in Canada or in Europe. But here in the US, professional sports teams routinely get local and state governments to build them stadiums, ostensibly because they cannot be profitable otherwise. Yet these very same sports teams can afford to pay their athletes ludicrous contracts. Now there's a worthy way to spend tax payer dollars, way to go free market economy!

 

Umm, That isn't a free market. If this is true (And I realy can't be assed to research it) Then those sports teams are simply using your government for free handouts. The act of playing a sport isn't a business. If your government is handing out large sums of money to Sports organizations that as you say are making enough money to pay out outrageous amounts of money in player salaries then that is no fault of the free market, That is the fault of an extremely irresponsible government playing sugar daddy with tax payers money. Here's a tip, The free market falls within the realms of Economics, Not politics. The two examples you've brought to my attention would actually strengthen my contention against the EU poking it's nose into the free market - Not yours. Curious.

 

 

That is your opinion and from it we can conclude that you do not regard that Microsoft is a monopoly.

 

Unfortunately for you it is not an opinion. I really didn't want to but hey ..

 

From Wikipedia: "In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monopolium - Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."

 

Now try and fit Microsoft into that definition. But you are correct, I don't regard MS as monopoly.

 

 

However, I have pointed out one notable source in this thread who disagrees, and while I'm at it, the US government has already concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly, you can take "a trip to wikipedia" and search for "US V Microsoft" if you want to find out more.

 

You mean thisone? The one that states and I quote:

 

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave off-the-record (but nevertheless disclosed) interviews to the news media during the case, and that Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper."

 

And from the same article:

 

"However, the appeals court did affirm in part Judge Jackson's ruling on monopolization. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy for "drastically altered scope of liability" that the court had upheld, under Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The DOJ, now under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty."

 

And again:

 

"On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future."

 

And again:

 

"The dissenting states regarded the settlement as merely a slap on the wrist. Some people in the computer industry agreed with dissenting States, especially those who advocated open source and alternatives to Microsoft"

 

And one more time:

 

"Microsoft's obligations under the settlement, as originally drafted, expire on November 12, 2007. [12] However, Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and that if the plaintiffs later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement even as far as 2012, it would not object"

Sounds like a Monopoly to me. Now how about that trip to wikipedia? - You could even actually read the article you refernced in your defense.

[supernovafan]

I don't know what gave you that impression, but my post about the airlines was merely responding to a general statement you made in regards to the government and wasn't meant to try to blur the distinction between free-market and politics. But no big surprise as I/we have already established that you and I think differently. So I tried to point out that the government can sometimes interfere in a positive way. That is unless someone takes your side as evidenced by the links you posted. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that putting thousands of workers out of a job is a good thing to do, but then again you and I think differently.

 

As for the US vs Microsoft case, I think we agree here, it is, without a doubt, a joke. It is yet another example of how the US governement handles or should I say mis-handles high profile legal cases. I wasn't trying to use it to build the case that Microsoft is a monopoly, because as I have clearly stated on another thread that I was pitching a rant and they can't due to the existence of "competition". I was using it just to point out that there are those with a difference of opinion to yours. Even if part of the ruling was reversed as you pointed out it is irrelevant to my argument.

 

Anyway if it's not clear to you yet, the point I've been trying to make to you is that there are those who disagree with your opinion. I say Microsoft has too much power at their disposal, enough so to make them a viable threat to the economy, and you can't or don't. So be it, we'll just have to "agree to disagree" and let it work itself out in the free market and political arena. After all what difference does the opinion of two hackers posting on a hacker forum make?

 

Another thing I might add is that I don't go around calling people I don't know, I don't remember exactly how you phrased it but I think it amounts to, stupid or idiot only because their point of view different. You conveniently omit or ignore this personal attack on me when you reference any of my responses to you. And now that I think about it, I'll tell you what difference an opinion makes, even if it comes from a hacker. Through expressing my thoughts and opinions in an adult like manner and by showing some respect to others who feel differently, I acn gain some respect from others. Once that respect is gained my point of view might carry some value, then maybe, just maybe, I can convince to think my way. Personal attacks will accomplish nothing, they will just pi** people off. I hope you don't treat people personally in such a rude manner.

 

So if my ranting about the MS monopoly brings out such strong negative emotions in you that you have to lash out at me personally, then perhaps you might consider hanging around in this forum, I'm sure you won't find the opinions quite so disturbing over there. Because really, I'm concerned for your health.

 

Peace out troll, Have a nice life!

[Swad]

Keep it civil, gents.

[Rez.]

As for the US vs Microsoft case, I think we agree here, it is, without a doubt, a joke. It is yet another example of how the US governement handles or should I say mis-handles high profile legal cases. I wasn't trying to use it to build the case that Microsoft is a monopoly, because as I have clearly stated on another thread that I was pitching a rant and they can't due to the existence of "competition". I was using it just to point out that there are those with a difference of opinion to yours. Even if part of the ruling was reversed as you pointed out it is irrelevant to my argument.

 

and while I'm at it, the US government has already concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly, you can take "a trip to wikipedia" and search for "US V Microsoft" if you want to find out more.

 

You might want to keep track of what you say .. All I did was visit the Article per your advice - No need to sulk because it didn't agree

with you.

 

So if my ranting about the MS monopoly brings out such strong negative emotions in you that you have to lash out at me personally, then perhaps you might consider hanging around in this forum, I'm sure you won't find the opinions quite so disturbing over there. Because really, I'm concerned for your health.

 

Lol,Says the man who ends his hissy fit with "Peace out troll, Have a nice life!". But this is neither here nor there, Thank you for your concern regarding my health - I'm touched.

 

 

Keep it civil, gents.

 

Always good sir, Always.