Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Feb 2008 18:33 UTC, submitted by JJ
"Microsoft was fined a record 899 million euros (USD 1.35 billion) by the European Commission on Wednesday for using high prices to discourage software competition in the latest sanction in their long-running battle. The executive arm of the European Union said the U.S. software group defied a 2004 order from Brussels to provide the information on reasonable terms. Microsoft has now been fined a total of 1.68 billion euros by the EU for abusing its 95 percent dominance of PC operating systems through Windows."
Thread beginning with comment 302677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
do you actually know what the EU does?
Yeah, they generate voluminous amounts of paper, hot air, and fines.
Yes, the fine is big, BUT microsoft would not have those kind of sums in the bank had it not denied the competition
That is debatable. We don't know the impact of the lack of interop documentation on the marketplace. Samba is a perfect example of an excellent product that has succeeded in spite of no docs.
The reason no-one wanted the non media player version was it was the same price as the version WITH (in the uk at least)
Perhaps, in some peoples' fantasy world, everyone should pay for a media player. Or a web browser. Or notepad. Or paint. Or solitaire. Or other least-common-denominator software that just about everyone uses. But that isn't reality. Practically nobody buys commercial versions of basic apps when there are perfectly good free choices on the market (WinAmp, FireFox, Flash, etc). So, really, those apps don't (and shouldn't) affect the price of Windows.
Member since:2006-03-12
Perhaps, in some peoples' fantasy world, everyone should pay for a media player. Or a web browser. Or notepad. Or paint. Or solitaire. Or other least-common-denominator software that just about everyone uses. But that isn't reality. Practically nobody buys commercial versions of basic apps when there are perfectly good free choices on the market (WinAmp, FireFox, Flash, etc). So, really, those apps don't (and shouldn't) affect the price of Windows.
It has nothing to do with creating a lucrative market for basic apps. It's about allowing software to compete on the platform. If you delete RealPlayer, it's gone. If you delete Windows Media Player, it respawns itself before your eyes, and when you run it, you get an advertisement of your choice from among a handful of Windows Media download services offering files that require Windows Media Player on Windows to keep playing. The de facto installed position of that software allows Microsoft to create dependence before customers are aware of lock-in or alternatives. The EU sees that tactic as abusive. I tend to agree.
Member since:2005-07-06
Samba is a perfect example of an excellent product that has succeeded in spite of no docs.
That was easy: a lot of guys working on Samba came from Microsoft and left because Microsoft wanted more compatibility with older software, the developers didn't like it and joined (or started?) Samba. So specs where not needed.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
do you actually know what the EU does?
Yes, the fine is big, BUT microsoft would not have those kind of sums in the bank had it not denied the competition
The reason no-one wanted the non media player version was it was the same price as the version WITH (in the uk at least)