Microsoft concedes, complies with EU antitrust ruling
By Thomas Ricker 
posted October 22nd 2007 7:50AM
posted October 22nd 2007 7:50AM
- Rival software developers (including open-source) can now access and use Microsoft interoperability information
- Royalties for this information will be reduced to a one-off payment of €10,000 / $14,000
- Royalties for a world-wide license to use Microsoft's product and patents will be reduced from 5.95% to just 0.4%
Wow - Let's start simple
Didn't NBC just walk away from iTunes? Hmmm.......If your statement is true, that should not have happened. Yes, iTunes is a big player in the game. Apple, as a corporation, wants to have the power to bully companies around. The problem is - the companies Apple wants to bully around are bigger than it. I don't want to punish Apple for being successful - they are not doing anything wrong (well for the most part anyway - the thing with AT&T is fishy to me)
I dont want the government to come into to my home to tell me what to do with I make, but even this has limits - I can't go around inviting people (all legal) to my home and then shooting them with a gun I made. The gov't can come in and punish me. But this is nothing like the MS situation - MS wants to be in everyone's home, destroying anything and pervading everything - appliances, phones, etc., to do whatever it wants - i.e. try to kill Java because it was seen as a threat to its dominance. (As an aside, can someone confirm this for me, my memory is foggy on this subject: MS was afraid of Java since it would work on any OS. If Java became the backbone of an OS, and not the OS itself, MS would be in big trouble - i.e. go bankrupt). OS is more like a weapon than a piece of art.
The reason the crime analogy works so well is because anti-trust, insider trading, etc., are all corporate versions of criminal activities. We don't need losers in the economy, just like we don't need victims. If loser loses because someone cheats, the winner should be punished.
Mirage, you can't have it both ways. If Microsoft is evil for wanting to push its operating system, then Apple is evil for wanting to push its music program and wanting to kill the PC. If Apple had a better business model in the 80's, we might be having a very different conversation right now.
Didn't many companies walk away from Microsoft when they chose an OS for their servers? I seem to recall Linux having an actual market in that field.
Again, I am not clear.
First, there is a difference between wanting to kill someone and actually killing something. The former everyone feels 10 time a day and isnt a crime. The latter only a few do and is a crime.
Second, the way something is accomplished is important. By way of analogy, my job is to pick apples, and I am diligent, hardworking, etc, and I get about 80% of the apples. Because of my hard work, others cannot get any apples, and they go broke. Of course, I want to be the best and I intend to succeed, which by implication I intend others to fail, considering there is a limited supply. However, I didn't go about this by crippling my competitors or making agreements with local gasoline stations to hurt my competitors (who does this sound like, intel maybe?)
MS is "evil" because it had a bad intent AND a committed bad act - legally, mens rea and actus reus. A crime requires both elements.
Again, thank you for your comment, as it forces me to sharpen my thoughts. At least your comments are more substantive than Eric's ;)
Another defeat to free market economy and punishing the successful. Wonderful If the competitors products were preferred, then they'd be the dominant one. I still can't believe that this is even legal in Europe. It was a frivolous lawsuit that cost an American company billions. Pathetic. We should've let Hitler take over the rest of Europe, apparently there's no intelligent life across the pond.
I agree with this decision. For an OS as semi-universal as Windows, it needs to be open to examination and regulation. That having been said, I don't see any courts forcing Apple to only charge .4% royalties on their patents. Last I heard they charge 10% for anyone who makes iPod accessories.
Apple, you're next.
If it wasn't for Microsoft...the world we know it as it is won't even exist. If the result for good business is a lawsuit and getting shunned...then what's the point of working at all? We might as well just sit in front of a computer, go on forums, live off the government and just complain about people who are more successful than we are. Oh wait, there won't be anyone for us to complain about then, because no one would want to be successful. We wouldn't even be able to get food, because as soon as one of them opens, they would be accused of monopoly.
If a business is successful, let it be successful. I don't care if Microsoft charges $10,000 for a copy of Vista 2.0, because if they did, their company would collapse, and they know it. If you don't like Microsoft, don't use it. Create your own if you really don't like anything out there. I just don't understand why people whine about how other people are successful.
Let it be successful on the merits, not because it cheats. And if you are going to cheat, don't get caught. Again, MS is not a do gooder play by the book successful business - its a get your hands extremely dirty kind of business.
The problem with MS is that their company won't collapse. Think about it - How many Joe Sixpacks have PCs? Do you think they can actually write up an OS, let alone have the patience and intelligence to learn something new? If some new company were trying to pull the crap MS was doing, they wouldn't succeed. It's good to be the king.
Who "forced" anyone to install, purchase, or otherwise use any of Microsoft's products?
Before you answer, make a concerted effort to quiet that reactionary voice in your head which instantaneously seeks to spew invective equating Microsoft with "bad." Please, make the effort, even if you do harbor a visceral dislike for Microsoft or its products, no matter the reason.
Now, ask yourself where "force" came into the picture at any point. Did someone--perhaps a company employee or government henchman--threaten you with bodily harm? Were you deprived of nourishment and prevented from contacting family by a cult, whose ultimate aim was to compel you to buy or use Microsoft's latest product offering? Did Microsoft claim eminent domain over something you own, only to then use such ownership to induce your adoption of its various software products? Have you been surreptitiously administered a drug whose effect is to somehow cause you to go out and buy Windows, Office, or an MSN subscription? Perhaps a secret, company-backed multi-level marketing scam deceived you into giving your credit or bank account number, then charged you for several thousand copies of Windows 3.1 which you are expected to sell?
Once again: Who FORCED you to buy Vista? Who FORCED you to install Word or Excel? Who FORCED you to access the World Wide Web using Internet Explorer?
The lack of an alternative product does not constitute force.
The inadequacy or incompatibility of a competing piece of software does not equal force.
The widespread adoption of one software brand by manufacturers, developers, and end users is not force.
Bundling of software features or increased integration within an existing product--not force.
Startup costs, development times, and other so-called "barriers to entry" into the software market? Challenges yes, but assuredly not force.
Working at a company whose systems all run the same software--no force there either.
Savvy marketing and aggressive pricing are not force.
Stop confusing market share with force.
The European Union ruling against Microsoft is nothing short of an economic "gun to the head" (If you smiled at the literal image of this metaphor, I have nothing more to say to you, as you represent malevolent irrationality with whom no proper discourse can safely proceed.).
The failure of so many to recognize this ruling for the evil it represents portends an uncertain future for innovators everywhere.
The wholesale endorsement of this ruling should sound the alarm for innovators large and small. If you are such a person, realize that ever-swelling masses of people have lost their grip on some fundamentals of reality, and they're out to gain a grip…on your freedom to create.
Shrug.