Europe: Microsoft still out of compliance

After reviewing the latest documents submitted by Microsoft in its antitrust case, the European Commission announced Friday that it sent a letter to the software giant reaffirming its view that the company is out of compliance with its antitrust order.

The letter is the latest blow to the software maker as it heads toward its oral hearing in the case. After the hearing, scheduled for March 30 and 31, the Commission will make a final decision on whether to impose a daily fine of $2.36 million (2 million euros), which would remain in force until Microsoft comes into compliance with the Commission's historic antitrust order.

The Commission, which in December issued a "statement of objections" that said Microsoft had not complied with its 2004 order, had its monitoring trustee, Neil Barrett, review additional information Microsoft supplied after the "statement of objections" was released. The order calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers.

"The monitoring trustee notes that although it was improved slightly, 'nothing substantial was added to the technical documentation,' compared to the previous version," according to a statement by the Commission. "The material continues to be incomplete, inaccurate and unusable."

The Commission also had Taeus Europe, a European subsidiary of intellectual property valuation and reverse engineering firm Taeus International, review the Microsoft documents.

Taeus' report describes various parts of the documentation as "entirely inadequate" and "self-contradictory," according to the Commission statement. "Taeus concludes that Microsoft's documentation was written 'primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information.'"

Microsoft, however, contends it has gone above and beyond industry requirements for documentation.

"Microsoft has submitted...a large volume of expert testimony that finds in the clearest of terms that Microsoft's documentation reaches or exceeds every industry standard for the documentation of such technologies," Microsoft said in a statement. "The fact that the Commission has sought to review the evidence after issuing its December 'statement of objections' shows quite clearly that the "statement'...is fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn."

Should the Commission issue a final decision against Microsoft, the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued. The Commission may then take additional steps to extend the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the order.

The Commission's letter is just the latest action it has taken in the closely watched antitrust case.

In a rare move, the Commission on Friday also published information detailing the role of its monitoring trustee.

European antitrust regulators took this unusual step after Microsoft last week asked the U.S. courts to intervene in the case. Microsoft is seeking to gain access to documents and communications between the companies and the Commission's trustee, Barrett.

As part of the Commission's decision to define the trustee's role, the document outlines recommended actions.

"It's not the kind of normal thing we do, but we have done so because Microsoft is alleging the trustee acted in an inappropriate manner in terms of contacting other companies," said Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the Commission. "We wanted to make crystal clear that he is obligated to be proactive."

In defense of its trustee, the Commission noted in its statement: "The trustee must be in a position to gather views on compliance issues through contacts not only with Microsoft engineers but also with potential beneficiaries of the remedy...(they) are therefore part of his obligations under the trustee decision and not in any way a form of inappropriate collusion as has been suggested."

[inachu]

Microsoft playing the Bully..... *YAWN*

This is so tiring to listen to.

[VI Joker]

In the end...

... M$ is going to hand the EU some documentation with improvements, and the EU is going to review them. After that they are going to say everything is going good keep it coming, and few weeks\months later they will be backt to saying they are going to charge M$ millions a day. Then cycle will begin again. If the EU really wanted to fine M$ they would have done so already. They are not interested in righting wrong just filling up their time with something to do.

[technewsjunkie]

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

Your comment "Yawn" demonstrates a compete lcak of
understanding of a major issue regarding innovation and free
market competition.

[inachu]

Microsoft playing the Bully..... *YAWN*

This is so tiring to listen to.

[VI Joker]

In the end...

... M$ is going to hand the EU some documentation with improvements, and the EU is going to review them. After that they are going to say everything is going good keep it coming, and few weeks\months later they will be backt to saying they are going to charge M$ millions a day. Then cycle will begin again. If the EU really wanted to fine M$ they would have done so already. They are not interested in righting wrong just filling up their time with something to do.

[technewsjunkie]

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

Your comment "Yawn" demonstrates a compete lcak of
understanding of a major issue regarding innovation and free
market competition.

[Captain_Spock]

What Exactly Are The EU's Game Plans!...

.... as the following article reads; "The Internet was originally developed three decades ago for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), mainly for the purpose of interconnecting different-brand computers. The TCP/IP suite of protocols allowed, through its layered structure, to insulate applications from networking hardware.

Although it is based on a layered model, it is focused more on delivering interconnectivity than on rigidly adhering to functional layers. This is one of the reasons why TCP/IP has become the de facto standard internetworking protocol as opposed to OSI.

TCP/IP networking has been present in Linux since its beginnings. It has been implemented from scratch. It is one of the most robust, fast and reliable implementations and is one of the key factors of the success of Linux. In fact, a Linux system expects to be networked"; see link:

http://docs.mandragor.org/files/Operating_systems/Linux/Introduction_to_Linux_-_A_Hands_on_Guide_en/sect_10_01.html

This latest article states taht; "The Commission, which in December issued a "statement of objections" that said Microsoft had not complied with its 2004 order, had its monitoring trustee, Neil Barrett, review additional information Microsoft supplied after the "statement of objections" was released. The order calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers...";
Since from the above article it should be quite clear that it was not Microsoft that originally created/developed "The Internet" three decades ago for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), mainly for the purpose of interconnecting different-brand computers..." so, why does this "highly questionable" EU Commission "order calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers"! :-(

How about "Using Samba to Provide Services on PCs"

http://www.york.ac.uk/services/cserv/ms-os/sept11/pjrtalk.htm

Just what are the EU's "GAME" plans!

:-( :-( :-(

[open-mind]

Here's a Summary:

EU: "Hey MS, you're not allowed to leverage your monopoly by failing to document its proprietary interfaces. You're preventing competition. That's illegal here. Please update your docs or face a fine."

MS: "OK, will do."

... a few weeks later...

MS: "OK, done. Here it is."

EU: "I don't think so. You just added more words, It's still unusable. Please update your docs or face a fine."

MS: "This is unfair. We think our docs our good. Only those trying to *use* our docs claim they're no good. They're obviously against us, so your results are flawed. Hey, US Court System, help us out!"

...to be continued...

[jeromatron]

Ummm...this isn't about TCP/IP protocols

This is *not* about TCP/IP protocols. This is about the protocols
that the SAMBA project reverse-engineered in order to interoperate
with Microsoft Servers. *That* is the stuff that isn't available to
people, especially without a restrictive license, which is prohibitive
for open source developers.

[Captain_Spock]

What Exactly Are The EU's Game Plans!...

.... as the following article reads; "The Internet was originally developed three decades ago for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), mainly for the purpose of interconnecting different-brand computers. The TCP/IP suite of protocols allowed, through its layered structure, to insulate applications from networking hardware.

Although it is based on a layered model, it is focused more on delivering interconnectivity than on rigidly adhering to functional layers. This is one of the reasons why TCP/IP has become the de facto standard internetworking protocol as opposed to OSI.

TCP/IP networking has been present in Linux since its beginnings. It has been implemented from scratch. It is one of the most robust, fast and reliable implementations and is one of the key factors of the success of Linux. In fact, a Linux system expects to be networked"; see link:

http://docs.mandragor.org/files/Operating_systems/Linux/Introduction_to_Linux_-_A_Hands_on_Guide_en/sect_10_01.html

This latest article states taht; "The Commission, which in December issued a "statement of objections" that said Microsoft had not complied with its 2004 order, had its monitoring trustee, Neil Barrett, review additional information Microsoft supplied after the "statement of objections" was released. The order calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers...";
Since from the above article it should be quite clear that it was not Microsoft that originally created/developed "The Internet" three decades ago for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), mainly for the purpose of interconnecting different-brand computers..." so, why does this "highly questionable" EU Commission "order calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers"! :-(

How about "Using Samba to Provide Services on PCs"

http://www.york.ac.uk/services/cserv/ms-os/sept11/pjrtalk.htm

Just what are the EU's "GAME" plans!

:-( :-( :-(

[open-mind]

Here's a Summary:

EU: "Hey MS, you're not allowed to leverage your monopoly by failing to document its proprietary interfaces. You're preventing competition. That's illegal here. Please update your docs or face a fine."

MS: "OK, will do."

... a few weeks later...

MS: "OK, done. Here it is."

EU: "I don't think so. You just added more words, It's still unusable. Please update your docs or face a fine."

MS: "This is unfair. We think our docs our good. Only those trying to *use* our docs claim they're no good. They're obviously against us, so your results are flawed. Hey, US Court System, help us out!"

...to be continued...

[jeromatron]

Ummm...this isn't about TCP/IP protocols

This is *not* about TCP/IP protocols. This is about the protocols
that the SAMBA project reverse-engineered in order to interoperate
with Microsoft Servers. *That* is the stuff that isn't available to
people, especially without a restrictive license, which is prohibitive
for open source developers.

[lgmbackman]

It is all about the abuse of a monopoly

Microsoft was sentenced for the abuse of a monopoly in the USA by the US DoJ.
Microsoft was, however, able to make a joke about it in the USA.
Now the EU is trying the same thing in the EU.
And Microsoft finds it inpossible to belive that they cannot succed with the EU like they did with the US DoJ.

Google for

Case COMP/C-3/37.792

Download the pdf and read it. It is a well written document by the EU about the case, What they want and why.
It should have been written in the USA and the whole case should be in the US.
And it is not about money.
It appears, however, that money is the only thing that makes Microsof listen.
Microsoft will drag its feet as long as they can, they will lobby sloppy politicians and I would not be too surprised if they tried bribery too.

[Captain_Spock]

This EU's Case and your arguments....

... just do not make any sense as it appears that the EU is trying to hold on to the last "vestiges" of certain elements of a brand of "socialism/communism" where the state "extracted" from the peasants in order to foster its ideologies. Explain where in the US and other Jurisdictions around the world that make up the 90% plus market share that they are compelled/forced to purchase products from a certain US based software company when there are competitive brands like the "LAMP" Stack... When the Chinese (that make up approximately one-third of the world's population) start to dominate the EU must make similar requests to them for their "intellectual properties"! I guess you have not heard of the "S_H_A_R_E_D - S_O_U_R_C_E - M_O_D_E_L of business that I think the Russians do not have any problems with! :-(

[lgmbackman]

It is all about the abuse of a monopoly

Microsoft was sentenced for the abuse of a monopoly in the USA by the US DoJ.
Microsoft was, however, able to make a joke about it in the USA.
Now the EU is trying the same thing in the EU.
And Microsoft finds it inpossible to belive that they cannot succed with the EU like they did with the US DoJ.

Google for

Case COMP/C-3/37.792

Download the pdf and read it. It is a well written document by the EU about the case, What they want and why.
It should have been written in the USA and the whole case should be in the US.
And it is not about money.
It appears, however, that money is the only thing that makes Microsof listen.
Microsoft will drag its feet as long as they can, they will lobby sloppy politicians and I would not be too surprised if they tried bribery too.

[Captain_Spock]

This EU's Case and your arguments....

... just do not make any sense as it appears that the EU is trying to hold on to the last "vestiges" of certain elements of a brand of "socialism/communism" where the state "extracted" from the peasants in order to foster its ideologies. Explain where in the US and other Jurisdictions around the world that make up the 90% plus market share that they are compelled/forced to purchase products from a certain US based software company when there are competitive brands like the "LAMP" Stack... When the Chinese (that make up approximately one-third of the world's population) start to dominate the EU must make similar requests to them for their "intellectual properties"! I guess you have not heard of the "S_H_A_R_E_D - S_O_U_R_C_E - M_O_D_E_L of business that I think the Russians do not have any problems with! :-(

[open-mind]

Analogy for Sheldon

Suppose MS owns all the roads in your country ... thus they have an MS-road monopoly.

Then MS decides they want to be in the car business too. MS knows they can't make "better" cars, so they build MS-cars with tires made of special MS-rubber. Then they resurface their MS-roads, so that competitors tires go flat on the resurfaced MS-roads. So consumers must start buying MS-cars to avoid flat tires. MS claims MS-cars are "innovative" because they don't get flat tires.

EU says, "Hey MS, you're destroying car competition, because other's cars don't work on your roads. Since you have a road monopoly, that's illegal here. Please share how to make MS-rubber, or face a fine."

End of analogy.

Is that enforcement of fair competition? Or is that socialism?

[jeromatron]

The nature of organizations with monopolies

Unfortunately, the nature of organizations with monopolies is to
abuse monopoly power.
Microsoft has done it again and again.
Oracle would probably do it if they had a monopoly, so would a
variety of other companies.
The question is how to do deal with it.
If a company has shown itself to repeatedly abuse monopoly
power, it seems like another analogy...
It seems like a 6 year-old with an uzi. After he destroys
something, we say that he was a bad boy and take away his
teddy bear. But he *still has the uzi*!
I don't think Microsoft can be trusted anymore with a monopoly.
I think the only reason that they aren't broken up, per the
original US DOJ ruling, is because they have so many business
ties and political connections - which is also abuse of monopoly
power - which is the problem in the first place.
So the 6 year-old continues to threaten its way to more lunch
money.
Don't blame the 6 year-old, just take away the uzi.

[Jim Harmon]

The flaw in your logic.

MS does not own your computer - you can install whatever software you wish. They are by no means the only software producer.

Why should MS be punished simply because so many people HAVE CHOSEN to buy theirs? You don't like the way MS does business? Buy something else. Contrary to popular belief, there really ARE alternatives - OPEN SOURCE alternatives as a matter of fact. FREE OPEN SOURCE alternatives, just waiting to be downloaded.

But, this fact doesn't seem to phase people. There are free alternatives to WMP available for download, yet the EU forced MS to pointlessly remove it.

[open-mind]

Analogy for Sheldon

Suppose MS owns all the roads in your country ... thus they have an MS-road monopoly.

Then MS decides they want to be in the car business too. MS knows they can't make "better" cars, so they build MS-cars with tires made of special MS-rubber. Then they resurface their MS-roads, so that competitors tires go flat on the resurfaced MS-roads. So consumers must start buying MS-cars to avoid flat tires. MS claims MS-cars are "innovative" because they don't get flat tires.

EU says, "Hey MS, you're destroying car competition, because other's cars don't work on your roads. Since you have a road monopoly, that's illegal here. Please share how to make MS-rubber, or face a fine."

End of analogy.

Is that enforcement of fair competition? Or is that socialism?

[jeromatron]

The nature of organizations with monopolies

Unfortunately, the nature of organizations with monopolies is to
abuse monopoly power.
Microsoft has done it again and again.
Oracle would probably do it if they had a monopoly, so would a
variety of other companies.
The question is how to do deal with it.
If a company has shown itself to repeatedly abuse monopoly
power, it seems like another analogy...
It seems like a 6 year-old with an uzi. After he destroys
something, we say that he was a bad boy and take away his
teddy bear. But he *still has the uzi*!
I don't think Microsoft can be trusted anymore with a monopoly.
I think the only reason that they aren't broken up, per the
original US DOJ ruling, is because they have so many business
ties and political connections - which is also abuse of monopoly
power - which is the problem in the first place.
So the 6 year-old continues to threaten its way to more lunch
money.
Don't blame the 6 year-old, just take away the uzi.

[Jim Harmon]

The flaw in your logic.

MS does not own your computer - you can install whatever software you wish. They are by no means the only software producer.

Why should MS be punished simply because so many people HAVE CHOSEN to buy theirs? You don't like the way MS does business? Buy something else. Contrary to popular belief, there really ARE alternatives - OPEN SOURCE alternatives as a matter of fact. FREE OPEN SOURCE alternatives, just waiting to be downloaded.

But, this fact doesn't seem to phase people. There are free alternatives to WMP available for download, yet the EU forced MS to pointlessly remove it.

[lgmbackman]

As it stands right now

Read this story in theregister.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_response/

[lgmbackman]

As it stands right now

Read this story in theregister.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_response/

[Seaspray0]

survey of complaints

I'm curious. Of all the previous posts, how many of those posting the "abuse of monopoly" theme are actually using Windows as their operating system?

The one thing I don't understand about the EUC's request is one for the interopability of how a Windows servers shares files over tcp/ip. Microsoft doesn't have a monoply on server software, did not invent the concept, and has had to make their servers compatable with the protocols already in existence on Unix servers. If I'm not mistaken, linux and unix hold the majority of the servers that feed the web pages of the internet.

[Captain_Spock]

The survey appear to say....

... that this entire EU position is a gimmick or ploy; and, this is why, when the return journey into outer space started there was no Microsoft monopoly... a little later on there was apparently Windows and the rival OS/2 (which was reputed to have been the better of the two Operating Systems) and herein lies my argument based on the following article on "The History of OS/2" which in part states;

"In the Beginning DOS - 1981

In 1981 when the original IBM Personal Computer was announced, IBM released three operating systems for it. How many of you remember that? Since I wrote the first IBM course on how to fix this original PC, I had to know at least a little about all three of them.

IBM decided early in the development process of the PC that they did not want to hire a bunch of programmers to write software for it - especially an operating system. IBM wanted the hardware business and did not care about the software. Since there was no clear-cut contender for an operating system at the time, IBM approached three organizations about writing one for the PC.

IBM first approached Digital Research and asked them to create a version of CP/M (Control Program/Microcomputer). The owner of DR snubbed the IBM lawyers and went flying or golfing (depending upon whose story you hear) instead.

IBM then turned to Microsoft. Bill Gates was very receptive to the IBM overture and also had information about an operating system which had already been written that would fill IBM's need very nicely. Gates said yes to IBM, bought the operating system called DOS for $20,000 and modified it somewhat to run on the IBM PC..."; note carefully where it says, "IBM decided early in the development process of the PC that they did not want to hire a bunch of programmers to write software for it - especially an operating system. IBM wanted the hardware business and did not care about the software";

re: http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html

similarly, and fast forward to Route/Highway 98 when Microsoft (around the beginning of the Windows inevitable market share success) said that the other kids on the playing participating in the game decided to thrust all the Operating Systems development work on them - Microsoft (with its MOAIST TYPE DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM POLICY) via a centralized development process was able to acquire its presently held development prowess. My question, why agree to something at one stage of the game and as time go by accuse Hugo of hitting you out of the playing field with his "crystal balls" (or now that he dominates on Route 98, Route 2000, Route XP... with his easy to drive cars which are not necessarily better than an alternative RR or Linux) when you gave him the privilege/opportunity to develop them in any which way through your own faults of not wanting to stay up late at nights to do your own home-work/research. Why have 1000 models of a car (Linux) being developed in 1000 different locations and none can get/fly you to the top of Mt Everest!

[amosbatto]

SMB is the problem, not TCP/IP

James,
The problem isn't interacting with a Microsoft server via TCP/IP (which is an open standard). The problem is interacting with Microsoft servers using microsoft's SMB protocol, which you need to do if you are going to transfer a file or send a print job in a Microsoft local network. Microsoft did not invent SMB, rather they took an existing protocol (originally developed by IBM I think) and "embraced and extended" it so that its competitors could no longer use that protocol. All the EU is doing is saying that Microsoft has to give its competitors enough information so that they can interact with the SMB protocol. It isn't an unreasonable request. Microsoft responded by not giving enough documentation about its SMB protocol and by creating a licensing fee that excludes Open Source software which is Microsoft's principal competitor. Microsoft deserves to be punished for defying the court

[Seaspray0]

survey of complaints

I'm curious. Of all the previous posts, how many of those posting the "abuse of monopoly" theme are actually using Windows as their operating system?

The one thing I don't understand about the EUC's request is one for the interopability of how a Windows servers shares files over tcp/ip. Microsoft doesn't have a monoply on server software, did not invent the concept, and has had to make their servers compatable with the protocols already in existence on Unix servers. If I'm not mistaken, linux and unix hold the majority of the servers that feed the web pages of the internet.

[Captain_Spock]

The survey appear to say....

... that this entire EU position is a gimmick or ploy; and, this is why, when the return journey into outer space started there was no Microsoft monopoly... a little later on there was apparently Windows and the rival OS/2 (which was reputed to have been the better of the two Operating Systems) and herein lies my argument based on the following article on "The History of OS/2" which in part states;

"In the Beginning DOS - 1981

In 1981 when the original IBM Personal Computer was announced, IBM released three operating systems for it. How many of you remember that? Since I wrote the first IBM course on how to fix this original PC, I had to know at least a little about all three of them.

IBM decided early in the development process of the PC that they did not want to hire a bunch of programmers to write software for it - especially an operating system. IBM wanted the hardware business and did not care about the software. Since there was no clear-cut contender for an operating system at the time, IBM approached three organizations about writing one for the PC.

IBM first approached Digital Research and asked them to create a version of CP/M (Control Program/Microcomputer). The owner of DR snubbed the IBM lawyers and went flying or golfing (depending upon whose story you hear) instead.

IBM then turned to Microsoft. Bill Gates was very receptive to the IBM overture and also had information about an operating system which had already been written that would fill IBM's need very nicely. Gates said yes to IBM, bought the operating system called DOS for $20,000 and modified it somewhat to run on the IBM PC..."; note carefully where it says, "IBM decided early in the development process of the PC that they did not want to hire a bunch of programmers to write software for it - especially an operating system. IBM wanted the hardware business and did not care about the software";

re: http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html

similarly, and fast forward to Route/Highway 98 when Microsoft (around the beginning of the Windows inevitable market share success) said that the other kids on the playing participating in the game decided to thrust all the Operating Systems development work on them - Microsoft (with its MOAIST TYPE DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM POLICY) via a centralized development process was able to acquire its presently held development prowess. My question, why agree to something at one stage of the game and as time go by accuse Hugo of hitting you out of the playing field with his "crystal balls" (or now that he dominates on Route 98, Route 2000, Route XP... with his easy to drive cars which are not necessarily better than an alternative RR or Linux) when you gave him the privilege/opportunity to develop them in any which way through your own faults of not wanting to stay up late at nights to do your own home-work/research. Why have 1000 models of a car (Linux) being developed in 1000 different locations and none can get/fly you to the top of Mt Everest!

[amosbatto]

SMB is the problem, not TCP/IP

James,
The problem isn't interacting with a Microsoft server via TCP/IP (which is an open standard). The problem is interacting with Microsoft servers using microsoft's SMB protocol, which you need to do if you are going to transfer a file or send a print job in a Microsoft local network. Microsoft did not invent SMB, rather they took an existing protocol (originally developed by IBM I think) and "embraced and extended" it so that its competitors could no longer use that protocol. All the EU is doing is saying that Microsoft has to give its competitors enough information so that they can interact with the SMB protocol. It isn't an unreasonable request. Microsoft responded by not giving enough documentation about its SMB protocol and by creating a licensing fee that excludes Open Source software which is Microsoft's principal competitor. Microsoft deserves to be punished for defying the court

[free_people]

It is because they have real democracy in Euro

The reason that European commission is able to impose real sanctions
on Microsoft and make it pay those sanctions is because they have real
democracy in Europe.

To see this point, consider the fact the people in USA don't even have Universal Health care.
This means that 40 to 50 Mill Americans, at least, are without health
insurance. Just to put things in perspective how disgusting and anti people
this is, should you get sick in US and spend like 15 days in Hospital, you
could get a bill like $250,000 sent to you. The same Hospital stay in
France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, etc. would cost you about $5 on average!
In fact more Americans are killed every 2 to 3 days due to lack of health
care than were killed in 911. How are such injustice possible in US, it is
because there is no real democracy there. And how is it possible that there
is no real democracy in US? Because Big Media/Government controls what
people see/think, and Big media ranges from TV, to Print, to Radio, to
Google, Yahoo, MSN etc.

So of course the European commission would be the only organization to really
hold MSs feet to the fire and not the US government. Because if it does not, the
people there would vote their governments out of office and replace them with real
choices, like they did in Spain, not like in US where there is no difference
between Democrats or Republicans.

But Europe needs to take further action against cultures being
controlled by few giant US/UK companies, we need to actively foster the use &
growth of European based information sources/products, or at least
Open based information sources/products, that is why we should back
and use the following information sources/products:

For the DNS root server: ORSN.org
For Database: MySQL.com
For Desktop/Server OS: Linux
For Search engine: Anoox.com

Any suggestions for a non-US based source for online payment processing?
I mean one to replace Visa/Mc/Amex. I don't think so. But would love to be surprised.

[Earl Benser]

You've said this before....

......repeating it does not improve its credibility, or rather lack
thereof

[Captain_Spock]

Just What It Is the Relevance....

... of the point that; "40 to 50 Mill Americans, at least, are without health insurance. Just to put things in perspective how disgusting and anti people this is, should you get sick in US and spend like 15 days in Hospital, you could get a bill like $250,000 sent to you. The same Hospital stay in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, etc. would cost you about $5 on average! In fact more Americans are killed every 2 to 3 days due to lack of health care than were killed in 911. How are such injustice possible in US, it is because there is no real democracy there. And how is it possible that there is no real democracy in US...." to the mis-guided EU order that "calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers."; also,

"The monitoring trustee notes that although it was improved slightly, 'nothing substantial was added to the technical documentation,' compared to the previous version," according to a statement by the Commission. "The material continues to be incomplete, inaccurate and unusable."

Microsoft, the people that live in the USA and those that are dying to come to the USA to follow the Microsoft Dream should tell the EU and its Anti-American Company/Anti-American Way Of Life cronies to go and suck on oranges or bite on bananas! :-( :-( :-( Can the EU better the Gates Foundation's Efforts in Africa?

You are confusing Democracy with Socialism

What is the advantage to having Universally Poor Health Care? Perhaps the real reason we don't go that route is that a truly FREE PEOPLE don't feel the need to have the government wipe their nose, or their ass for them. Likely or not, if your government does that for you, they will eventually end up using the same rag to do both.
BTW, the U.S. is NOT a Democracy, any more than we are a Socialist country. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, with democratically elected leaders. I myself have no wish to be subjected to the Tyranny of the Masses. Freedom for the individual is SELF DETERMINATION, not some mediocre Marxist freebee socialist giveaway. So, blow!

[free_people]

It is because they have real democracy in Euro

The reason that European commission is able to impose real sanctions
on Microsoft and make it pay those sanctions is because they have real
democracy in Europe.

To see this point, consider the fact the people in USA don't even have Universal Health care.
This means that 40 to 50 Mill Americans, at least, are without health
insurance. Just to put things in perspective how disgusting and anti people
this is, should you get sick in US and spend like 15 days in Hospital, you
could get a bill like $250,000 sent to you. The same Hospital stay in
France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, etc. would cost you about $5 on average!
In fact more Americans are killed every 2 to 3 days due to lack of health
care than were killed in 911. How are such injustice possible in US, it is
because there is no real democracy there. And how is it possible that there
is no real democracy in US? Because Big Media/Government controls what
people see/think, and Big media ranges from TV, to Print, to Radio, to
Google, Yahoo, MSN etc.

So of course the European commission would be the only organization to really
hold MSs feet to the fire and not the US government. Because if it does not, the
people there would vote their governments out of office and replace them with real
choices, like they did in Spain, not like in US where there is no difference
between Democrats or Republicans.

But Europe needs to take further action against cultures being
controlled by few giant US/UK companies, we need to actively foster the use &
growth of European based information sources/products, or at least
Open based information sources/products, that is why we should back
and use the following information sources/products:

For the DNS root server: ORSN.org
For Database: MySQL.com
For Desktop/Server OS: Linux
For Search engine: Anoox.com

Any suggestions for a non-US based source for online payment processing?
I mean one to replace Visa/Mc/Amex. I don't think so. But would love to be surprised.

[Earl Benser]

You've said this before....

......repeating it does not improve its credibility, or rather lack
thereof

[Captain_Spock]

Just What It Is the Relevance....

... of the point that; "40 to 50 Mill Americans, at least, are without health insurance. Just to put things in perspective how disgusting and anti people this is, should you get sick in US and spend like 15 days in Hospital, you could get a bill like $250,000 sent to you. The same Hospital stay in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, etc. would cost you about $5 on average! In fact more Americans are killed every 2 to 3 days due to lack of health care than were killed in 911. How are such injustice possible in US, it is because there is no real democracy there. And how is it possible that there is no real democracy in US...." to the mis-guided EU order that "calls for Microsoft to provide accurate and adequate protocol information to allow rivals' technology to interoperate with Windows PCs and servers."; also,

"The monitoring trustee notes that although it was improved slightly, 'nothing substantial was added to the technical documentation,' compared to the previous version," according to a statement by the Commission. "The material continues to be incomplete, inaccurate and unusable."

Microsoft, the people that live in the USA and those that are dying to come to the USA to follow the Microsoft Dream should tell the EU and its Anti-American Company/Anti-American Way Of Life cronies to go and suck on oranges or bite on bananas! :-( :-( :-( Can the EU better the Gates Foundation's Efforts in Africa?

You are confusing Democracy with Socialism

What is the advantage to having Universally Poor Health Care? Perhaps the real reason we don't go that route is that a truly FREE PEOPLE don't feel the need to have the government wipe their nose, or their ass for them. Likely or not, if your government does that for you, they will eventually end up using the same rag to do both.
BTW, the U.S. is NOT a Democracy, any more than we are a Socialist country. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, with democratically elected leaders. I myself have no wish to be subjected to the Tyranny of the Masses. Freedom for the individual is SELF DETERMINATION, not some mediocre Marxist freebee socialist giveaway. So, blow!

[System Tyrant]

Dump 'em

Maybe Microsoft should just pull up stakes and the EU area.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but for the most part I disagree with the EU's handling of Microsoft. It seems more like a pig headed move on their part than a well thought out way to bring competitiveness back to the software market dominated by Microsoft.

[System Tyrant]

Dump 'em

Maybe Microsoft should just pull up stakes and the EU area.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but for the most part I disagree with the EU's handling of Microsoft. It seems more like a pig headed move on their part than a well thought out way to bring competitiveness back to the software market dominated by Microsoft.

[X-C3PO]

Tell me what company not want to be the monopoly?

The only reason is the MS is not a EU company ...

[System Tyrant]

I'm sure...

all companies would love to wield the power Microsoft has. Of course that's why monopoly laws exist. Monopolies aren't good for the economy or innovation.

Outside of small business I'm not sure that any company doesn't want to be a monopoly. I'm sure that many have morals until they get to the top.

Of course becoming a monopoly is only half the battle staying that way is the other half and Microsoft obviously does a very good job at staying on top.

[X-C3PO]

Tell me what company not want to be the monopoly?

The only reason is the MS is not a EU company ...

[System Tyrant]

I'm sure...

all companies would love to wield the power Microsoft has. Of course that's why monopoly laws exist. Monopolies aren't good for the economy or innovation.

Outside of small business I'm not sure that any company doesn't want to be a monopoly. I'm sure that many have morals until they get to the top.

Of course becoming a monopoly is only half the battle staying that way is the other half and Microsoft obviously does a very good job at staying on top.

[hahne59]

Isn't this one thing you would want something to dominate....

Imagine....
We're in the "Ultra-Fair Zone".
There are ten operating systems each with 5% to 20% of the market share.
HP has the HPOS
Dell has the EZOS
Microsoft has Windows
So on....
Businesses have an incredibly hard time comminticating.
Governments are not able to interoperate.
People can't even send their friends a text document.

People have a choice not to buy Windows machines. I'm sure the people down at the Apple store would be more than willing to help you buy a computer. But you know why average computer users buy Windows? Because it does what they need. It is easy to work with. Everyone else has it.

Businesses and governments also could buy Apples and use Linux. But they don't. Its like a fax machine ten years ago. Everyone else has one and you are unable to operate without one.

Also, Windows users can choose their hardware. They can pick Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, Acer and many others. Mac users can pick the size of their computers hard drive. They have only one hardware maker to choose from. If Apple wants to jack up prices it can and does. Perhaps Apple has a monopoly over Mac OSX.

Just a quick thought.................

[amosbatto]

Natural monopolies are only good when regulated

Yes, operating systems are what economists call a "natural monopoly" meaning that the market will naturally gravitate to a monopoly because a monopoly is the most efficient. The problem with monopolies is that they stifle innovation and often charge people too much. In short, natural monopolies have to be regulated in order to protect the public. Microsoft has never been properly regulated although American and European laws clearly call for it. So it isn't a bad thing that Microsoft has a monopoly, but it is a bad thing that they can use that monopoly to raise prices (which they do) and use that monopoly to keep out competitors (which they do) and use that monopoly in the OS to force computer makers to not use competing products in areas like media players.

[hahne59]

Isn't this one thing you would want something to dominate....

Imagine....
We're in the "Ultra-Fair Zone".
There are ten operating systems each with 5% to 20% of the market share.
HP has the HPOS
Dell has the EZOS
Microsoft has Windows
So on....
Businesses have an incredibly hard time comminticating.
Governments are not able to interoperate.
People can't even send their friends a text document.

People have a choice not to buy Windows machines. I'm sure the people down at the Apple store would be more than willing to help you buy a computer. But you know why average computer users buy Windows? Because it does what they need. It is easy to work with. Everyone else has it.

Businesses and governments also could buy Apples and use Linux. But they don't. Its like a fax machine ten years ago. Everyone else has one and you are unable to operate without one.

Also, Windows users can choose their hardware. They can pick Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, Acer and many others. Mac users can pick the size of their computers hard drive. They have only one hardware maker to choose from. If Apple wants to jack up prices it can and does. Perhaps Apple has a monopoly over Mac OSX.

Just a quick thought.................

[amosbatto]

Natural monopolies are only good when regulated

Yes, operating systems are what economists call a "natural monopoly" meaning that the market will naturally gravitate to a monopoly because a monopoly is the most efficient. The problem with monopolies is that they stifle innovation and often charge people too much. In short, natural monopolies have to be regulated in order to protect the public. Microsoft has never been properly regulated although American and European laws clearly call for it. So it isn't a bad thing that Microsoft has a monopoly, but it is a bad thing that they can use that monopoly to raise prices (which they do) and use that monopoly to keep out competitors (which they do) and use that monopoly in the OS to force computer makers to not use competing products in areas like media players.