Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Jan 2009 11:56 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 346275
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-01-17
Gary, you are wrong here for a reason. Look, this is "rule of law". Someone files a complaint about x, the authority investigates x on grounds of law, you get a ruling on x and expect compliance of the business with x.
You are saying, oh yeah, there is this discussion about x but I find y more interesting. Why doesn't the EU go for y?
Microsoft never understood that this is not about deals with authorities but compliance with rulings.
It doesn't matter if the authority "wants" X or not, it has no target except that it enforces antitrust laws.
Musing about the Windows API is just off-topic.
If you are ordered to get me a candy stick you cannot provide chocolate instead. This has nothing to do with whether I like chocolate less or even prefer it. You can get me chocolate, thanks, or honey and I still request you to get me the candy stick: nothing more, nothing less.