You do of course realise that Gates hasn't been in charge of Microsoft for years... Personally I think additional fines at this point are a bit silly, I can't help but think that they're just going after MS because they're the easiest to go after. Nothing like an extra bit of pocketmoney *sigh*
I dont understand the details but I cant see why MS should have to share its IP, for free, with other companies. What REAL good has the "non WMP" XP done for anyone in the EU? Absoultely nothing other than waste the time of those in court.
whilst 'non wmp' xp was one of the demands, it was the least significant of all. what a lot of people fail to understand is that Microsoft are nto having to release any of its IP, they are having to provide interoperability documentation. they are not being forced into anything other than providing the documentation they should have in the first place. thats all, just the documentation. no source code, no trade secrets, nothing other than the protocol interface documentation a good example is the SMB system, (i.e. windows file sharing). as it stands, it is a closed system, microsoft have never released any documentation for it that is of any use. basicly, if you have a windows file server, you need a windows machine to access it. the Samba linux package was only produced after several years of reverse engineering of the protocol. this enables microsoft to enforce a hidden monopoly, i.e. if you have three windows desktops, you *must* make you're fourth machine a windows box, or it wont be able to talk to the others. in short, all the EU have asked for is the protocol documentation, so that other operating systems can talk to windows boxes. they dont need MS to make any changes or do anything other than just giving them the protocol docs. this is what it has taken "300 engineers" "2 years" to produce? i think not. the fines have been levied becaue MS decided to do exactly what it did in america, ignore the problem and it will go away. unfortunately, when the US courts did this same thing, MS basicly just ignored it and the US courts rolled over and did nothing. the EU court, however, is enforcing this fine, and MS deserves every single penny of it. they had two years to do anything to make this go away, all they had to produce was the documentation showing how to talk to a windows server. whilst some people may consider such things "nothing other than waste the time of those in court" MS has had two years to solve this, been warned time and time again, and has been shown considerably more leniency than a 'normal' company would. this waste of the courts time has been caused because MS is playing its usual arrogant 'we are too big for you to sue' game, and thankfully, losing. personally, i dont think the fines are big enough, MS could pay these with the change fromt he company coffee machine.
they have their finger in their own asses? damn, i always thought they had it in *our* asses, usually every time we paid for another copy of windows cause our last one wouldnt activate anymore. /me sniggers and wanders off for some linux flavoured lunch.
Thats the attitude that pisses me off tbh. While the fines make sense, Why increase them again? "MS can afford it, why not?" If they really wanted MS to take action, fines clearly aren't the way to go.
The fines have to be big to make ms complie. If the fines were small then they would continue to ignore them as its not hurting their profit at all.
Um, Zindane, that's not their finger... @Mr. Tad, yes, I know, but Bill Gates is and always will be the symbolic head of MS, and is (IMHO) the person most responsible for their corporate attitude on the world. Keep in mind that his original accomplishment in the computer world was selling software. Up until that time it had been freely traded between the people who wrote it since the only "market" was people who built their computers from scratch.
Of course Microsoft is to blame for all of this, becuase it's the biggest and richest company. I don't see why the SMB protocal should be open, it's theirs, and you pay for it. It's called business. If you don't like it, then use another open protocal. No-one sues Apple for anti-trust violations, becuase they arn't rich enough for that. **** the EU.
Actually, France and I think the EU as well are moving to force Apple to modify their DRM to allow ITMS downloads to play on other players. I think the EU is clearly sending the message that it you make a product it must play nicely with other products and that monopolies based on incompatability will not be tolerated.
how can i use another open protocol? my windows box doesnt support it, nor does it allow any open protocol machines to be used with it..... kinda made my point for me there. I *want* to use an open protocol, but MS said i cant. oh, and nobody sues apple because apple made all the documentation available. (i.e. apple made the appletalk networking protocol interface specs available for all to use, hence why it is so easy to network them with other machines). as for their DRM, thats a seperate issue, but sveral countries are gearing up to have a go at apple too. this is not 'we want some MS money', this is 'if you are going to compete, you can compete fairly'. if MS give out the docs, then linux and apple can talk the same language as MS. that means they are all on a level feild. if MS win (which they will), then they win on fair terms (i.e. they have the biggest market share), not because MS refuse to allow the end user to use anything other than MS.
Well personally I don't care what caused it. Anything that brings Microsofts "uber-god of the OS market" down a bit is a good thing, and $357M has to sting regardless of who you are. I think all the people who make calls of "this is business" are missing the point. Anti-monopoly laws exist because when it's just one business playing the game, that becomes bad for the consumer. Very bad. Don't start whining on about linux and Mac OS either, because it's not just about options, it's about those options being taken in significant numbers. A monopoly isn't a good thing in a fast moving software market. The sooner the current one ends the better.
Microsoft's tactics over their last 15 years of court battles have been to delay, the latest fine is just a way of telling them to stop messing about and get a move on. EU law allows very much stiffer ones, up to 5% of a company's turnover.
