Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
Thread beginning with comment 554571
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:


"In my opinion, no; it would suck balls ;) Do I think it should be illegal? No."

Well, haha I guess we have a difference of opinion since I'm glad to have antitrust to prevent things from getting that bad. Anyways it wouldn't really be directly illegal per-say, it's just the antitrust *coercion* which is illegal.

"The DMCA is a PERFECT illustration of how anything the government does usually has unintended consequences, even if they originally meant well."

The DMCA was crafted by corporate interests, it was never conceived for the public benefit. If it were up to me I'd kick all corporate lobbyists out of the lawmaking process.

Edited 2013-03-07 22:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WorknMan on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:39 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WorknMan Member since:

The DMCA was crafted by corporate interests, it was never conceived for the public benefit.

I think that's too simplistic of an explanation. As far as the government was concerned, without the DMCA, there would be much more rampant piracy, which would mean an end to the content industry as we know it, and hundreds of thousands of people would be out of a job. Although opinions differ, I personally think this would've been the case. But even so, I don't think it was the government's job to save the content industry either, and they should've left it alone. When technology renders your product obsolete by making it possible to replicate your product an infinite amount of times for $0, and you can't make money anymore as a result, it's time for you to find a new career. Many industries (like the horse & buggy) have gone by the wayside as a result of technology. Why should the content industry be any different?

Anyway, the DMCA was just an example of businesses trying to survive off the government's teet; not really a whole lot different than what many individuals are trying to do. And I can understand why they did it too. Everybody wants the government to do their bidding, to make some problem that they're having go away. In the end though, they usually end up causing more problems than they solve. As far as most liberals are concerned, I don't disagree with them in regard to how shitty some things are, I just don't look at the government as our ultimate savior.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Fri 8th Mar 2013 00:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:


I agree with most of that regarding DMCA.

We're not going to see eye to eye on having no government regulation at all though. Just because some laws are bad doesn't mean we should get rid of all of them - especially those like antitrust (do correct me if I'm mistaken, but that sounded like the logic you used to reject anti-trust law).

Reply Parent Score: 2