Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 20:24 UTC
Microsoft In February 2008, the European Commission fined Microsoft for the record-breaking amount of 899 million Euros, for not complying to the 2004 ruling from Brussels. Today, Microsoft announced it has decided to appeal the fine. "We are filing this appeal in a constructive effort to seek clarity from the court. We will not be saying anything further," the company stated.
Thread beginning with comment 313685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by JamesTRexx on Sat 10th May 2008 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
JamesTRexx
Member since:
2005-11-06

I still think that the tactics of just coming up with some excuse to fine them then finding another excuse and do that again and again isn't any better.


That's just it, they don't have to come up with excuses when Microsoft keeps on playing unfair after being told not to.

Reply Parent Score: 3

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Why is something unfair when Microsoft does it, but perfectly fair when IBM, Apple, Oracle, Sun, Novell, or anyone else does it?

I think this 'unfair' thing and the litany of abuses, like Netscape, OOXML, eeePC, BeOS and others are just catchphrases that the ABM crowd likes to throw about assuming that, 'everybody knows Microsoft is evil.' What exactly is evil about competing and winning?

I'm sure some groups within Microsoft did 'evil' things. But Microsoft is a huge company and suffers more from disorganization than evilness. The company was more aggressive when it was smaller and when there were more competitors like OS/2, Apple, Sun, Novell, and others, but those companies were aggressive too, and simply lost because they either were not as well managed or because Microsoft eventually produced better products than them. The answer, as Google, Apple, and Mozilla have demonstrated is to make better products than Microsoft's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Sat 10th May 2008 18:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

"The answer, as Google, Apple, and Mozilla have demonstrated is to make better products than Microsoft's."
There are better operating systems than Windows. But how can they compete when 95% of the computers come bundled with Windows?
The slaves go to Best Buy and don't have a clue. They pay without even having a choice. Better than fining Microsoft would be forcing the vendors to not bundle the computers with Windows and present a few alternatives. If the customers still want Windows, OK then, but at least let them know that there are alternatives.

Edited 2008-05-10 18:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by sbergman27 on Sat 10th May 2008 18:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Why is something unfair when Microsoft does it, but perfectly fair when IBM, Apple, Oracle, Sun, Novell, or anyone else does it?

The actions of a monopoly player in a particular business area have different qualitative effects and far greater quantitative effects than the same actions performed by a non-monopoly player. Also, the most logical business strategy for a monopoly player differes from that of a non-monopoly player. Thus it is logical to hold monopoly players to a stricter standard of behavior in order to preserve competition and benefit "We the People". I'm surprised that you would ask the question.

Edited 2008-05-10 19:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by bousozoku on Sat 10th May 2008 19:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Why is something unfair when Microsoft does it, but perfectly fair when IBM, Apple, Oracle, Sun, Novell, or anyone else does it?

I think this 'unfair' thing and the litany of abuses, like Netscape, OOXML, eeePC, BeOS and others are just catchphrases that the ABM crowd likes to throw about assuming that, 'everybody knows Microsoft is evil.' What exactly is evil about competing and winning?

I'm sure some groups within Microsoft did 'evil' things. But Microsoft is a huge company and suffers more from disorganization than evilness. The company was more aggressive when it was smaller and when there were more competitors like OS/2, Apple, Sun, Novell, and others, but those companies were aggressive too, and simply lost because they either were not as well managed or because Microsoft eventually produced better products than them. The answer, as Google, Apple, and Mozilla have demonstrated is to make better products than Microsoft's.


Microsoft is poorly managed but hardly disorganised. How about all the little things that ended up in their Office product like "wetbacks" as a synonym for Mexicans? That's not evil?

Besides, IBM went to court over anti-trust allegations and was fined and ordered to un-bundle their large systems.

Apple does dubious things all the time, like the situation with Java 1.4.x when Safari was new. They made third party products jump through hoops while the fanatics laughed. When they added functionality to Sherlock to be able to search for movies, flights, etc., it was just like another, third party product. A few people complained but mostly it didn't matter because both products are history. Apple shouldn't be dominant any more than Microsoft should be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes. Someone needs to pay their fine now or see it increased.

Reply Parent Score: 1