Comments on: Europe: Microsoft still out of compliance
European Commission reviews latest Microsoft documents, says company is still out of antitrust compliance.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- The $199 tablet according to Freescale
January 3, 2010 9:30 PM PST
- Bono risks becoming next Lars Ulrich
January 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST
- Dell laptop using Intel Core i3
January 3, 2010 3:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
understanding of a major issue regarding innovation and free
market competition.
understanding of a major issue regarding innovation and free
market competition.
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!
:-( :-( :-(
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...
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.
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!
:-( :-( :-(
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_response/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_response/
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.
"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!
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
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.
"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!
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
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.
thereof
"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?
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!
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.
thereof
"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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.................
- Isn't this one thing you would want something to dominate....
- by hahne59 March 13, 2006 7:23 AM PST
- Imagine....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Natural monopolies are only good when regulated
- by amosbatto March 13, 2006 10:11 AM PST
- 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.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
(104 Comments)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.................