Microsoft is making key communications protocols available for license, so that third parties, including competitors, can link into the company's newest enterprise products. Some are available immediately. The list of available protocols, XML schemas and application programming interfaces include transport protocols for communications between Office Outlook 2007 and Exchange Server 2007.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Since the EU is, like, the EU's government, it has the right to set the rules, as long as those rules are arrived at by the chosen process - i.e. in the EU's case, elected representatives voting on matters approved by civil servants. Your arguments propose carte blanche to companies, including the right to, say, rape babies as long as doing so increases profits.
As long what MS does respects other's freedoms, it's all good. Making contracts isn't raping babies. Because when you rape babies, you violate another's freedom. You're still confused between rights and choices.
What my arguments propose is the way of doing business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody on Earth did before the state started to intervene everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.
Stop punishing people for their successes.
It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.
More fear based argument.
Nothing produces quite so much manure quite so well as a fan of Microsoft and closed-source software.
And a well finished post by ranting and an insult.
Member since:2007-03-06
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2006-04-21
As long what MS does respects other's freedoms, it's all good. Making contracts isn't raping babies. Because when you rape babies, you violate another's freedom. You're still confused between rights and choices.
Microsoft? Respect others' freedoms? Split-my-sides-laughing funny.
What my arguments propose is the way of doing business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody on Earth did before the state started to intervene everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.
Ah, so you're in favour of child labour, slavery, people dying in childbirth, no compensation for workers who lose limbs in factory machinery, people dying on the streets, inadequate sanitation, and smog. Because that's what used to happen "before the state started to interfere". I'm glad we're clear on what you're in favour of.
Stop punishing people for their successes.
Conning people is not a "success". It is an admission you can't succeed by acting honestly.
Member since:2006-04-21
It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.
More fear based argument.
I'd seriously like to know how the argument that if the government has to encode information in proprietary document formats which only one company has control over, that company can easily hold the government to ransom, is "fear-based".
Member since:2005-09-17
> You're still confused between rights and choices.
It is much easier than that. Rights (and duties) are derived from the law. Hence, moral aside, if it you are not breaking any law you have the right, if you are breaking it you don't have the right.
The US (where I presume you write from) also has anti monopoly laws, and has other times stopped big companies to merge just because. So nothing weird going on here.
Member since:2006-06-09
> What my arguments propose is the way of doing
> business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody
> on Earth did before the state started to intervene
> everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.
The way everybody on earth did before (state's) laws was robbery and murder(s), aka unlawfully.
There is no free market, only regulated one.
Get used to it.
> Stop punishing people for their successes.
Let's punish people for breaking law(s). Being successfull or not is a moot point.
Member since:
2006-04-21
refund every cent for it's abuse of MS' rights.
No government has the right to limit MS' success. Nor decide what MS can do.
What MS does with it's software is only MS' business. And no one else's business. If the EU government want their own in-house copy of the source code to handle certain Office formats, they can enter negociations with MS. They'll be more than happy to share their productivity at a price.
Since the EU is, like, the EU's government, it has the right to set the rules, as long as those rules are arrived at by the chosen process - i.e. in the EU's case, elected representatives voting on matters approved by civil servants. Your arguments propose carte blanche to companies, including the right to, say, rape babies as long as doing so increases profits.
It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.
Nothing produces quite so much manure quite so well as a fan of Microsoft and closed-source software.