"It's been a good week for Microsoft's documentation efforts as the company achieved important milestones with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. US antitrust authorities signed off on Vista and IE7 and announced that Microsoft was making good progress in its efforts to document certain server protocols in Windows. In Europe, where Microsoft has encountered more problems and increased fines over the state of its documentation, the company got a rare bit of good news as the European Commission completed its initial review of the revised documents."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-29
Member since:2005-08-29
Just annihilate software patents and let them knock self out with their monopoly.
Abolishment of software patents is the real victory for EU, this is just cosmetic. I whish US and Japan will follow EU's example, so we could discuss about something more constructive then Novell-MS agreement and such nonsenses.
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:
2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-15
Member since:
2005-07-06
Microsoft met the last Deadline for them to hand over documentation , of be fined more , now its still unknown if the documentation handed down is what they asked of Microsoft.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4356974.html
European Union regulators said Microsoft Corp. handed in on time to meet a Thursday deadline information about its Windows operating software that should help other software companies.
The data will now be tested to confirm that Microsoft has finally complied with a 2004 antitrust ruling.
Member since:2006-01-06
I'll tell you. Microsoft apparently exceeded some magic threshold for becoming a "monopoly" -- a threshold that it could not possibly even contemplate, because that's only known by government bureaucrats -- and, consequently, its "reward" for providing customers what they want is an order requiring them to offer a version of Windows without Media Player. And since no one actually wanted the version that government bureaucrats ordered MS to provide, this is supposed to be some kind of victory. Oh, please. Can anybody really claim with a straight face that "justice" has been served by the EU? Because, in my humble opinion, it's all about giving European competitors a leg up against dominant American software companies.
(Yeah, yeah, mod me down, EU bigots. I'm used to it. You can't stand an honest debate.)
Member since:2005-06-30
tomcat,
making them release the version is still going to cost them money. Its not going to sell well, and MS is going to absorb the costs. Although it is nothing to MS, its still an unwanted itch...
Moreover, the money used to produce the version will return to the circular flow of income instead of sitting in the bank.
Furthermore, the media player is only a weak link. If MS tries to pull off another trick, like compete with Sony by providing XBoxes with every copy of windows, it will be stopped. And this case will be the "legacy" case that will be invoked to stop them. Hence the "victory"
Remember: no matter how good it is, a large homogeneous population is unstable. Supporting the unnatural monopoly is simply seeking self-destruction.
RE[3]: Media Player is a crime
Member since:2006-06-14
Vulnerable would be a better word, and it only applies to Fox of the two, since Apache can be patched at a moment's notice, while you have to wait around for the Fox release cycle or lose rights to distribute it.
Which is why people using Thunderbird must wait for 1.5.0.9 coming in December, which will fix the 'random mail deletion' bug, and distros have to wait on upstream. Since Nov. 11.
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360409
EDIT:
So yes, a wildspread, dependably homogenous program inevitably leads to this. The IceWeasel project doesn't seem so pointless now.
Edited 2006-11-25 10:37
Member since:2006-01-06
making them release the version is still going to cost them money. Its not going to sell well, and MS is going to absorb the costs. Although it is nothing to MS, its still an unwanted itch...
This accomplished nothing, as far as the market is concerned.
Moreover, the money used to produce the version will return to the circular flow of income instead of sitting in the bank.
Huh? This is a point without a point.
Furthermore, the media player is only a weak link. If MS tries to pull off another trick, like compete with Sony by providing XBoxes with every copy of windows, it will be stopped. And this case will be the "legacy" case that will be invoked to stop them. Hence the "victory"
BS. The original antitrust ruling is the only precedent needed, not this one.
Remember: no matter how good it is, a large homogeneous population is unstable. Supporting the unnatural monopoly is simply seeking self-destruction.
"Unstable" is a poor choice of words. I would suggest that a better choice would be "a more inviting target". There's nothing about deployment demographics which suggests that a particular product necessarily is less stable or less secure.
Member since:2006-01-04
making them release the version is still going to cost them money. Its not going to sell well, and MS is going to absorb the costs.
By claiming loudly in the press that there was an irremediable defect in XPn MS guaranteed that it would not sell well. This benefits them by requiring them to make fewer copies of the product while allowing them to FUD about how no one wants a product of theirs that they have themselves dissed.
Member since:2005-07-06
Because, in my humble opinion, it's all about giving European competitors a leg up against dominant American software companies.
Poor America, persecuted by Europe. May I kindly remind you that the plaignants were American companies (Sun, Real Networks…) and American associations (CCIA, ECIS - that one mainly American…). That said, I agree that requiring a Windows version without WMP is pretty dumb, but probably for different reasons than you.
Member since:2006-01-06
Poor America, persecuted by Europe. May I kindly remind you that the plaignants were American companies (Sun, Real Networks…) and American associations (CCIA, ECIS - that one mainly American…).
First, it wasn't simply "American associations" and competitors that were driving this. ECIS is a lobby organization based in Belgium primarily for European corporate benefit. Second, these so-called "American associations" (SIIA, for example) are comprised of many European members. Look it up. Third, it's "plaintiffs", not "plaignants".
Member since:2005-11-10
Poor America, persecuted by Europe. May I kindly remind you that the plaignants were American companies (Sun, Real Networks…) and American associations (CCIA, ECIS - that one mainly American…).
Both Sun and Real Networks have already settled with Microsoft outside the court. Don't tell me you missed that one.
Member since:2006-06-03
Think about it, if Microsoft had actually been forced to comply properly with the Internet Explorer anti-trust case (and if the a-t case had reached the right conclusions) and stopped shipping Internet Explorer by default, Firefox would probably have a dominant market share by now. Microsoft is abusing it's Operating System dominance to own the Internet browser, and Media player markets.
it's all about giving European competitors a leg up against dominant American software companies
Actually it's more about the American delusion that they have a free society. (btw. This is not an un-shared view)
Member since:2006-01-06
Think about it, if Microsoft had actually been forced to comply properly with the Internet Explorer anti-trust case (and if the a-t case had reached the right conclusions) and stopped shipping Internet Explorer by default, Firefox would probably have a dominant market share by now.
If that's your opinion, fine. Go with it. But there's no data which suggests that Firefox would be the dominant browser today if Microsoft had stopped shipping IE, by default. In the end, consumers would still have to make a choice, and I'd assert that at least half would stick with the same vendor.
Microsoft is abusing it's Operating System dominance to own the Internet browser, and Media player markets.
Nah. The courts already addressed the web browser issue - stick a fork in it. As for media player, MS has always shipped a media player since Windows 3.0 multimedia edition. Ordering them to uninstall it because some random competitors don't like the idea of MS distributing a free media player is simply dumb.
Actually it's more about the American delusion that they have a free society. (btw. This is not an un-shared view)
So, you're actually of the opinion that ordering MS to uninstall media player made Europe more of a "free society"? Hilarious. And nonsense. It was a solution looking for a problem. A hammer looking for a nail. The fact remains that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER. The effort was a total failure. Can't you see that?
Member since:2006-06-03
NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER
That's because the ruling was bad IMO (but the best that the EU were allowed to do). The problem of anti-competitiveness is NOT a consumer problem. The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N. Most of the consumers don't care, it's the other companies that do care.
It's a well-known scenario, called apathy, i.e. Voter apathy, consumer apathy etc..
Member since:2006-06-01
The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N.
I can see the ads: "Windows N - Less features!"
Of course your argument is completely wrong. Consumers were not harmed (in fact they received a benefit) by the inclusion of Media Player.
No amount of money spent on advertising could disguise the fact that the EU were wrong.
"consumer apathy"
People like features. If the features existed in other Media Players, the consumers could get them with a couple of clicks. No amount of money could fool people into think that Windows without a Media Player is a bad thing.
And people were smart enough to know that Microsoft had a duty to their customers to add useful features.
Windows EUnuch was not necessary. Bundling a Media Player is not a crime. The Eurocrats are corrupt.
Of course, the EU Commission is well known for its scandals:
"Barroso's Commission faced another scandal when, shortly before the Commission entered office, it was revealed by United Kingdom Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage that Jacques Barrot, the commissioner from France, had been convicted of fraud in 2000. After this, Barrot had received a presidential amnesty from Jacques Chirac, making it illegal in France to even mention his conviction."
Wikipedia
Microsoft has more moral weight thean the scandal plagued EU.
Member since:2006-06-03
making it illegal in France to even mention his conviction.
You're wrong. It is illegal for a french elected official to mention such a conviction only when they get the information based on privileged information. This is NOT a general prohibition on mentioning the conviction.
The fact that 'Jacques Barrot' failed to disclose his conviction was(IANAL so this is personal opinion) wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand the subtleties of "consumer apathy" but the point is that, in the long term, competition is a good thing, ot drives market prices down and increases competition. Most consumers are only aware about their next purchase, not the state of the market in 5/10 years. It is the duty of the law to take these sorts of considerations into account.
Because I've lost my trust in you grasping what this means; Microsoft Windows Vista costs from between $200-$400. Internet Explorer and WMP are 'free', yet Microsoft have to pay the developers for their time (shareholder responsibility). Therefore part of the cost of Vista must be paying the developers to program IE and WMP. ...therefore there is a closed market. Microsoft have a virtual monopoly on the OS market and by implication ('consumer apathy') Media Player and Browser markets. Without competition, there is little limit on what microsoft can charge for the 'privilege' of getting WMP free with Windows.
Member since:2006-06-01
Because I've lost my trust in you grasping what this means; Microsoft Windows Vista costs from between $200-$400.
About 40-50$ if you buy it with a PC. About the same price people have paid since Windows 96 and before.
Upgrade
•Vista Ultimate: $259
•Vista Business: $199
•Vista Home Premium: $159
•Vista Home Basic: $99
I think I've lost faith in your ability to be realistic about the cost of Windows.
Internet Explorer and WMP are 'free', yet Microsoft have to pay the developers for their time (shareholder responsibility).
Same with a zillion other features in the OS.
Therefore part of the cost of Vista must be paying the developers to program IE and WMP. ...therefore there is a closed market.
Lost me there. Just because someone adds a feature to a product doesn't mean the market is closed.
Think of anti-lock brakes on a car. Once upon a time only a few really high end cards had it. Now its a pretty standard feature.
[/i]Microsoft have a virtual monopoly on the OS market[/i]
"Near monopoly" according the EU. Not quite a full monopoly.
and by implication ('consumer apathy') Media Player and Browser markets.
No OS would sell today without those features. I could see your point if those were addons for every other OS, but they aren't.
Microsft has an obligation to its customers to supply features everyone else does.
[/i]Without competition, there is little limit on what microsoft can charge for the 'privilege' of getting WMP free with Windows.[/i]
In theory. However, since Microsoft is only a "near monopoly" there are lots of competitors.
Essentially what you want is Microsoft to be forced into the position of the "no feature" OS in order to make it more palatable for people to use Linux.
No thanks.
Member since:2006-01-06
That's because the ruling was bad IMO (but the best that the EU were allowed to do). The problem of anti-competitiveness is NOT a consumer problem. The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N. Most of the consumers don't care, it's the other companies that do care.
It's a well-known scenario, called apathy, i.e. Voter apathy, consumer apathy etc.
Look, YOU were the one who claimed that the EU's Media Player ruling made Europe more of a "free society". So how, exactly, does a ruling that has had ZERO IMPACT on the market -- since NO ONE bought Windows N w/o Media Player -- make you more free? And, before you pull some tortured hypothetical out of your rear end to justify your foolish statements, I think that most people would agree that the ruling actually lowered the IQ of Europe; hence, you're less free, because you're slaves to the intellectual simpletons at the EU commission.
Member since:2006-06-03
Look, YOU were the one who claimed that the EU's Media Player ruling made Europe more of a "free society".
I don't think so, I was claiming that the EU ruling was the RESULT of having a more free society.
actually lowered the IQ
I'm not sure that's possible. People tend to have an Intelligence Quota that varies with Age, not the posturings of international Lawyers. Sorry.
slaves to the intellectual simpletons at the EU commission.
At least these intellectual simpletons aren't trying to force Intelligent Design into the impressionable minds of children trying to learn science.
Member since:2006-01-06
I don't think so, I was claiming that the EU ruling was the RESULT of having a more free society.
Hilarious. So, the EU is more free to do idiotic and meaningless gestures. Nice.
I'm not sure that's possible. People tend to have an Intelligence Quota that varies with Age, not the posturings of international Lawyers. Sorry.
Oh, God. They got you, too.
At least these intellectual simpletons aren't trying to force Intelligent Design into the impressionable minds of children trying to learn science.
I'm not aware of any quasi-governmental bureacracies here in the U.S. that are trying to force ID on kids. Perhaps you got your strawmen mixed up.
Member since:2006-06-01
Think about it, if Microsoft had actually been forced to comply properly with the Internet Explorer anti-trust case
If Netscape had charged for its browser, instead of stealing it from Mosiac and giving it away for free to put competitors out of business who had licensed the technology from the NCSA, then Netscape would have gone out of business and there would never have been a Firefox.
Spyglass was the properly licensed company allowed to distribute Mosaic technology. They had licensed the technology to something like 22 firms including Microsoft.
Netscape chose to destroy as many of those companies as it could by giving away Netscape.
Edited 2006-11-26 22:22
Member since:2006-06-03
If Netscape had charged for its browser, instead of stealing it from Mosiac and giving it away for free
Except that NCSA was also giving away Mosaic for free, tthe only difference from Netscape Navigator (apart from the code) was that Netscape was more performant and had more features.
There is no proof and not much suggestion that Netscape stole any code from NCSA, and there were other graphical browsers out at the time, so the 'stealing' is down to the fact that Netscape was written by ex NCSA exployees? or because of the successfully settled trademark suit? For which Netscape paid a substantial sum.
allowed to distribute Mosaic technology
They didn't steal the technology, just the name (see above)
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2005-07-07
I wish someone, somewhere would tell me which law forbade Microsoft (and only Microsoft) from bundling a media player with their OS
You know very well that it wasn't a matter of bundling a media player, but bundling the codecs.
Microsoft, as a company selling desktop operating systems, was thereby unfairly helping Microsoft, as a solution provider for content distribution.
No other codec or streaming technology vendor can just piggyback on the Windows installation media, therefore not gaining the same market share on the consumer desktop, therefore not looking as good as Microsoft when a content distributor looks for solution.
I have never understood why removing the media player has been required by the settlement, removing all microsoft codecs or also bundling all competitors codes would have been wise.
RE[2]: Media Player is a crime
Member since:2005-10-13
Really. Which EU law is violated?
I don't know the EU laws, but I imagine it was the counterpart to the US Sherman anti-trust law. I'm sure the EU equivalent is stronger than the US one.
Kind of like GM bundling radios or CD players with their cars. Its unfair to manufacturers of radios and CD players. People should have to install their own after they buy the car.
Nope. Not logical.
2 problems with your comparison - 1st, GM doesn't sell 99% of the worlds cars. 2nd, GM doesn't prohibit you by law from uninstalling the CD/radio players and replacing them with your own, claiming that the player is an integral part of the car and cannot be removed without rendering the car completely useless.
It was all about punishing Microsoft for something that IS NOT against the law for no other reason than the abuse of power (and probably some serious bribes).
Let's not pretend that MS isn't "contributing" millions of dollars to the politicians as well. The truth is that it is politically expedient to go after MS in Europe (for many reasons) and on top of that, they were breaking the law. I do think MS is being given a hard time by Europe since then, though, but seriously what do you expect? MS is being given a very easy time here in the US, so I guess it all evens out.
Member since:2006-06-01
2 problems with your comparison - 1st, GM doesn't sell 99% of the worlds cars.
Microsoft doesn't sell 99% of the worlds computers either.
They have 37% of the server market and 95% of the desktop market.
2nd, GM doesn't prohibit you by law from uninstalling the CD/radio players and replacing them with your own,
Sure. But they don't allow you to force them to sell you a different CD Player than a GM one.
claiming that the player is an integral part of the car and cannot be removed without rendering the car completely useless.
No one is prevented from installing a different Media Player after you get the computer home. Microsoft is kind enough to bundle a web browser that lets you go off and download WinAmp or RealPlayer. Dell bundles Yahoo's Media Player with their computers. Real Player has been bundled on various computers for a decade.
Unlike in a car, the presence of Media Player does not prevent you from using another media player.
The EU humiliated itself with this ruling, and only its inquisitional tendencies allows them to get away with it.
Until of course it is overturned by the courts as many EU rulings are.
Member since:2006-06-03
They have 37% of the server market and 95% of the desktop market.
And yet elsewhere you use figures like the port80 stats of 54% for Web servers.
Sure. But they don't allow you to force them to sell you a different CD Player than a GM one.
No one is claiming that.
No one is prevented from installing a different Media Player after you get the computer home.
The issue isn't the prevention of installation of other software, it's the inability to remove the Microsoft Media Player, and its advertising that is the issue.
A correct analogy would be if MG prevented you from removing the builtin Radio, claiming that customers can add a secondary radio if wished.
Microsoft is kind enough to bundle a web browser
Microsoft is forced to provide a free web browser to keep market penetration. With other, free, more feature-rich, more secure browsers available. If people had a choice, they would probably not opt for microsoft IE.
Unlike in a car, the presence of Media Player does not prevent you from using another media player.
You can put multiple media players in a car, it's just harder than it should be. This is a correct analogy.
Until of course it is overturned by the courts as many EU rulings are.
Stick to your American beliefs, we'll keep our freedom thanks.
Member since:2006-01-06
And yet elsewhere you use figures like the port80 stats of 54% for Web servers.
None of which are verifiable.
The issue isn't the prevention of installation of other software, it's the inability to remove the Microsoft Media Player, and its advertising that is the issue.
There's absolutely no reason to remove Media Player. It doesn't interfere with the use of other media players. You don't have to run it, if you don't want to. Personally, I use WinAmp every day rather than Media Player, so the issue of software removal is a red herring.
A correct analogy would be if MG prevented you from removing the builtin Radio, claiming that customers can add a secondary radio if wished.
Bogus analogy. A car dash only has a single slot for the built-in radio. Not so with your computer. You can run as many media players as desired without incurring an infrastructural limitation such as the dashboard slot.
Microsoft is forced to provide a free web browser to keep market penetration.
That's an interesting "perspective".
With other, free, more feature-rich, more secure browsers available. If people had a choice, they would probably not opt for microsoft IE.
What planet do you live on? The antitrust ruling back in 2000 forced Microsoft to accomodate competing web browsers. Internet Explorer can be completely disabled in order to avoid stepping on competing browsers. Customers can download/use any of a dozen different alternative browsers. So, they have a choice. What you're actually annoyed at is that they don't like your choice. Well, that's something that you are going to have to live with, not them.
You can put multiple media players in a car, it's just harder than it should be. This is a correct analogy.
Your analogy is simply bogus. Try again.
Stick to your American beliefs, we'll keep our freedom thanks.
LMAO! Yeah, enjoy your "freedom" to *not* buy a version of Windows ordered by the EU to *not* contain Media Player. Some freedom. Face it: the only freedom that you were given was provided by the Allies when they liberated your sorry asses during WWII.
Member since:2006-06-03
the only freedom that you were given was provided by the Allies when they liberated your sorry asses during WWII.
I'm not going to get into too much war politics but: c'mon, we WERE the Allies (Allied nations, no?) and for most of the war, you guys were more interested in keeping your own freedom, than in helping us. The English joined the EUROPEAN allies. I remember about 5 years ago, it was announced that the UK had just finished paying off our debts to the US that we ran up PAYING you to help us during the war.
The antitrust ruling back in 2000 forced Microsoft to accomodate competing web browsers
See 'consumer apathy', dealt with elsewhere.
None of which are verifiable.
Actually, you're wrong. I verified the port80 data myself, I have the script and results available if you want to check.
"perspective".
You seem to have accidentally put quotation marks around this word.
Ste 
Member since:2006-06-01
And yet elsewhere you use figures like the port80 stats of 54% for Web servers.
54% of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.
The issue isn't the prevention of installation of other software, it's the inability to remove the Microsoft Media Player, and its advertising that is the issue.
If you install another Media Player that takes over the file types associated with Media Player, you never see Media Player in action.
A correct analogy would be if MG prevented you from removing the builtin Radio, claiming that customers can add a secondary radio if wished.
But if the GM radio was invisible to you and did nothing to prevent you from installing a 2nd radio, why should you care?
I suspect all you care about is hating Microsoft.
Microsoft is forced to provide a free web browser to keep market penetration. With other, free, more feature-rich, more secure browsers available. If people had a choice, they would probably not opt for microsoft IE.
A web browser is a crucial part of any desktop operating system. To offer an OS without a web browser would be bad business. Microsft has an obligation to provide a web browser to its customers and shareholders. They don't have an obligation to install Firefox just because Firefox is a security sieve.
You can put multiple media players in a car, it's just harder than it should be. This is a correct analogy.
It is not any harder to install WinAmp or Yahoo Music Player with Media Player present in the background.
Stick to your American beliefs, we'll keep our freedom thanks.
I know enough about say ... the French justice system to question whether citizens of France are free.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Really. Which EU law is violated? "
I am sure Microsoft is interested in your hard proof of them not commiting the crime and breaking of laws they have been convicted for.
http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom
"Kind of like GM bundling radios or CD players with their cars"
Kind of like Microsoft Bundling their OS with their computers , wait Microsoft dont make computers ...
"Nope. Not logical. "
GM vs Microsoft Joke explaining the Microsoft logics :
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/2000-March/00070...
"It was all about punishing Microsoft"
Yes , convicted criminal, repeat offenders, receiving punishment when found guilty without a doubt of breaking the laws.
" for something that IS NOT against the law "
They where not convicted of including Media Player , wich as been your point since the beginning of your tirade in order to discredit the EU and the valor of this case.
"for no other reason than the abuse of power "
For enforcing and making sure Microsoft respect the law in usage in the EU.
"(and probably some serious bribes). "
Definition of a fine : A fine is money paid as a financial punishment for the commission of minor crimes or as the settlement of a claim.
Definition of bribery : Bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person.
You seem to mix the two on purpose.
Member since:2006-06-01
They where not convicted of including Media Player , wich as been your point since the beginning of your tirade in order to discredit the EU and the valor of this case.
And yet, what was the "remedy"? Unbundling Media Player in Windows "N". Therefore the "crime" must have been bundling Media Player. Yet no such law exists.
Member since:2005-10-13
Member since:2006-06-03
Sometimes, you have the subtlty and finesse of a General Protection Fault.
Bundling the Media Player (complete with Advertising revenue) means that the average user will not install any alternative, because it plays my music, right? This means that Microsoft are using their OS virtual monopoly to stop any competition (and thus; aggravated development, pricing optimisation etc..). THIS is what is against the law.
Unfortunately, no-one has the money to be able to force Microsoft to remove IE and WMP and Messenger from the OS. American politicians (for some reason) always seem to spring out of the woodwork to protect Microsoft if anyone suggests such a thing. Thus the EU is stuck with this lame second-rate option being the best that they can do.
Member since:2006-06-01
Bundling the Media Player (complete with Advertising revenue) means that the average user will not install any alternative, because it plays my music, right?
Same with GM's bundled radio. All consumer operating systems should be able to play some media files.
BUT ... there is nothing against anyone downloading and installing an alternative.
Unfortunately, no-one has the money to be able to force Microsoft to remove IE and WMP and Messenger from the OS.
Just because you and the EU hate Microsoft doesn't mean you should be able to deprive them of a full featured OS out of the box.
Radio makers shouldn't be able to force GM to leave a hole in the dashboard when they sell cars.
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2006-01-04
Unbundling Media Player in Windows "N". Therefore the "crime" must have been bundling Media Player.
Therefore they are still committing the crime since they still offer Windows with the Media Player as well as the N version that they claim is defective and customers for some reason aren't buying.
So, if they are still free to commit the crime then what are you complaining about? The remedy is obviously ineffective and MS is not prevented from continuing the same behavior. Making the N version and then preventing it from being sold with negative publicity circumvents any effectiveness of the remedy so apparently there is no punishment. So, what exactly are you complaining about?
Member since:2006-07-04
"Yes , convicted criminal, repeat offenders"
Microsoft was never "convicted" of "criminal" activity. Do you know the difference between criminal law and civil law? There's a big difference. For example, the burden of proof. For criminal cases, a guilty verdict requires that the prosecution meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold as unamiously concluded by a jury. For civil cases of the type that was the DOJ/MS case, the plaintiff need only meet the "preponderence of evidence" (i.e. 50% + 1 of the evidence) threshold as concluded by a single judge which may or may not be an incompetent moron.
Oh, and "conviction" is not a term that generally applies to civil cases, only criminal ones (look up "conviction" at dictionary.com).
Your misuse of the terms "convicted" and "criminal" to apply to Microosft reveals your lack of understanding of antitrust law.
As for the European Commission, the EC is not a court, requires no due process, and its edicts don't constitute "convictions" of "criminal" activity either. So you're wrong on two continents.
Edited 2006-11-26 12:24
Member since:2005-07-06
Microsoft and some Microsoft employee was convicted of criminal activity , and numerous breaking of the laws in EVERY Country they do business in , numerous time ( hence the repeat offender ). I used to say that the only thing they did not commit was murder. But even that as proven to be false. Do your research properly for a change. Judges are impartials , they may not say "criminals" , "repeat offender" , without merit or proof.
Its the European Union.
There is 7 continent.
I am not talking about one case only , when I say Microsoft , I am talking about Microsoft.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:co...
"A verdict in a civil or criminal trial in which the defendant is found guilty of the charge."
Member since:2006-06-01
Microsoft and some Microsoft employee was convicted of criminal activity
Nonsense.
Blah blah blah
Wow. You can define "conviction" by looking it up on Google.
But obviously you didn't actually understand it:
"A verdict in a civil or criminal trial ..."
Even Google know that a civil trial and a criminal trial are not the same thing.
On the other hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/297584.stm
"Spring 1999 was supposed to be the European Union's finest hour, as its Economic and Monetary Union finally got underway.
Instead, the union was thrown into turmoil. After a scathing report suggesting corruption and mismanagement in the European Commission, all 20 commissioners were forced to step down."
Edited 2006-11-27 08:17
Member since:2006-07-04
Microsoft was convicted of criminal activity, including murder? What planet are you living on?
Oh, and I read your google search regarding the definition of "conviction", and only one of the many definitions applied "conviction" to civil cases, and that definition came from the New Jersey Judiciary site. Every other definition applied "conviction" to "crime", "criminal" activity. Is I said in my previous post, "conviction" is not *generally* applied to civil cases. From dictionary.com's definitions of "conviction":
Jurisdictions differ as to what constitutes conviction for various statutes (as habitual offender statutes). Conviction is rarely applied to civil cases."
So you happened to find one jurisdiction (NJ) that uses "conviction" to apply to civil cases, but neither the DOJ nor the EC do, nor do the vast majority of jurisdictions.
And you still were unable to spin away your misuse of the term "criminal" to apply to Microsoft. You even seem to admit that the Microsoft cases were civil cases, so you should also admit that the term "criminal" is wrong for those cases. Instead, you make up accusations of Microsoft committing murder and whatnot. Get real.
