PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft meets most EC demands


ASsman
04-05-2005, 09:17 AM
By John Oates
Published Tuesday 5th April 2005 11:28 GMT

Microsoft has accepted most of the conditions set by the European Commission to bring the software vendor into compliance with last year's anti-trust ruling.

Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, told the FT: "There were 26 areas where the Commission wanted changes to be made and we were able to say yes to 20 of those requests. Even on the remaining six, significant progress was made. I am hopeful that we will get closure within the next two to three weeks."

Smith said the firm was still trying to balance protecting its intellectual property with giving open source developers the access they need to create applications which will work with Microsoft servers.

Microsoft sent us the following statement: "Microsoft has undergone a thorough re-examination of the program to identify areas where the company can make changes to address the commission's concerns.

"Of the 26 areas where the Commission had concerns, we have accepted or offered proposals to address their concerns for 20 of these issues. Of the six that remain, it is a matter of working our way through them with the Commission as soon as possible.

"Since receiving the Commission's feedback, Microsoft has been working around the clock, and has been able to make significant progress on a number of major issues in this short period of time. We continue to work at full speed on the outstanding issues and remain committed to moving forward with the implementation process as quickly as possible."

The Commission is still concerned that open source developers have been excluded, or priced out of, Microsoft's licensing programme. It wants lower license fees and longer evaluation periods.

Microsoft offered to lengthen evaluation times from two days to eight days and dropped fees to €500 per day rather than €5,000 for one day and €7,000 for two days, according to the Seattle Times. The paper also reported that the software giant is prepared to consider flexible or customised licenses.

Microsoft is also struggling to find a way its API's can be distributed with open source products without revealing Microsoft code, according to Infoworld.®

http://www.theregister.com/2005/04/05/microsoft_commission_letter/
----
One sad day for capitalism.

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 09:29 AM
One sad day for capitalism.

why?

ASsman
04-05-2005, 09:31 AM
Because it is obvious that the consumer is to lose now, since M$ is a product of capitalism, and capitalism is good for the consumer.

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 09:38 AM
Because it is obvious that the consumer is to lose now, since M$ is a product of capitalism, and capitalism is good for the consumer.

but microsoft is meeting the demands of the anti-trust ruling....
that's a good thing (it's not enough...but it's a start).

what am i missing here?

or am i just missing your sarcasm again?

ASsman
04-05-2005, 09:40 AM
or am i just missing your sarcasm again?
Correct.


Also, M$ still has many other quirks that need tending to. And it's been doing the same thing for how long? And we are finally catching up. And not even US US, but those on the other fucking side of the world.

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 09:45 AM
Also, M$ still has many other quirks that need tending to.

yeah, it's called "sucking".


hey, i'm not a contributer.....i use Mac's exclusively....OSX, baby.

EN[i]GMA
04-05-2005, 02:05 PM
How will this benefit the consumer?

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 02:16 PM
GMA']How will this benefit the consumer?

protects competition.

Microsoft DOES NOT make the best product....
but they have a stranglehold on the marketplace....and name recognition and brand loyalty that takes advantage of psychology.
(kinda like McDonalds.....do they make the best food?)

EN[i]GMA
04-05-2005, 02:19 PM
protects competition.

Microsoft DOES NOT make the best product....
but they have a stranglehold on the marketplace....and name recognition and brand loyalty that takes advantage of psychology.
(kinda like McDonalds.....do they make the best food?)

It doesn't protect competition, it destroys it.

Microsoft was competing and winning and they just kicked them in the nuts. That isn't protecting competition, it's destroying it.

Ace42
04-05-2005, 02:22 PM
GMA']It doesn't protect competition, it destroys it.

Microsoft was competing and winning and they just kicked them in the nuts. That isn't protecting competition, it's destroying it.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 02:22 PM
GMA']It doesn't protect competition, it destroys it.

Microsoft was competing and winning and they just kicked them in the nuts. That isn't protecting competition, it's destroying it.

Microsoft no longer competes.....they control and dictate.

due to alot of rather lucky variables in the beginning.....Gates became the business world's equivelant of a lottery winner....
microsoft did not achieve what it did purely by having the best product.

we both know that.

i admire Gates, but Microsoft cannot be allowed to control the software market in the manner it does.

EN[i]GMA
04-05-2005, 02:41 PM
Microsoft no longer competes.....they control and dictate.

due to alot of rather lucky variables in the beginning.....Gates became the business world's equivelant of a lottery winner....
microsoft did not achieve what it did purely by having the best product.

we both know that.

i admire Gates, but Microsoft cannot be allowed to control the software market in the manner it does.

So what should Microsoft have done?

Competed LESS to make things more 'fair'? You think Microsoft should have undermined it's own competition in order to maintain competition? That's a contradiction.

In order to be more competitive, industries need less competition?

Your point cannot stand.

Call it whatever you want, just not preserving competition as it clearly and logically does the opposite.

Qdrop
04-05-2005, 02:44 PM
GMA']So what should Microsoft have done?

Competed LESS to make things more 'fair'? You think Microsoft should have undermined it's own competition in order to maintain competition? That's a contradiction.

In order to be more competitive, industries need less competition?



Microsoft should have done EXACTLY what it did.

and the gov't of the world should do exactly what they are doing to keep them in check.

protect capitalism by capping it and regulating.
that's not an oxymoron....that's essential.

ASsman
04-05-2005, 03:29 PM
Microsoft should have done EXACTLY what it did.

and the gov't of the world should do exactly what they are doing to keep them in check.

protect capitalism by capping it and regulating.
that's not an oxymoron....that's essential.
Dude, let him be.

EN[i]GMA
04-05-2005, 04:03 PM
Microsoft should have done EXACTLY what it did.

and the gov't of the world should do exactly what they are doing to keep them in check.

protect capitalism by capping it and regulating.
that's not an oxymoron....that's essential.

Why is it essential?

Maybe competition would be better served if govt. stayed out of business.

If you don't think this is relevent, do you know what software patents are?

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html

Let's see what these individuals have to say: Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.

Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).


So wow! These people got rich BECAUSE of government monopoly?! Holy shit!

Now do you see what I mean? Government one one hand destroys competition by providing 20 year monopolies on things like this, than on the other seeks to 'level the playing field'?

I do support copyrights and even patents to a degree, but what the government does with patents currently is not something I really like, particularly the length and exactitude of the laws. They need relaxed.

But as bad as they are, software patents are far worse.

Basically, the same EU that is 'protecting' consumers from evil Microsoft is working towards destroying free enterprise in the realm of computing.

Do you see why I hate government?

Ali
04-06-2005, 01:16 AM
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, told the FT: "There were 26 areas where the Commission wanted changes to be made and we were able to say yes to 20 of those requests. Conditional Surrender. Didn't Japan get nuked for that?

ASsman
04-07-2005, 09:01 AM
Conditional Surrender. Didn't Japan get nuked for that?
Heh, too bady sony wasn't around back then.