Comments on: Microsoft finally yields to EU order

European Commission says agreement brings company into compliance with 2004 antitrust ruling, addresses interoperability, royalty issues.

[Commander_Spock]

"Microsoft finally bows to EU antitrust measures...

... Sheeshh........ HAVE "CONCORDE" WILL FLY (ECONS & ENDRG TECH 700 + TRAINING & EXPERIENCE)

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!

[windridr]

this is really REALLY BAD!

To hold on to IP, the EU gave MS no choice but to burry the 'secret sauce' lower in the stack out of reach from the EU ruling. As a result, I suspect Vista SP1 and XP SP3 will be super super slow. Linux people may be dancing in the streets, but the people that actually do work on the PC will feel the pain in all of this. This is really REALLY BAD!

[lucien64]

Interoperability...

We will now have competition at a correct level. Microsoft allways tried to lock out competitors when they had success with doing business using Microsoft operating systems. Either they offered the same software for "free" or they closed the OS at the required level, offereing only third quality interface possibilities.

[Commander_Spock]

What...

... ever gave European regulators the impression that the rest of the world revolve around REDMOND so much so that it appears to have convinced the United States based Microsoft Corporation to end "its long battle with by agreeing to comply with key elements of the European Commission's 2004 antitrust order..."

"Under the agreement, Microsoft will make three "substantial" changes in the way it supplies interoperability information to competitors seeking to have their work-group server software work with Microsoft's operating system. The company will provide open-source software developers access to and use of its interoperability information...."; additionally, "the company has agreed to reduce royalties for its "no patent agreement" to a one-time fee of $14,189 (10,000 euros). Licensees who pay that fee will be able to access Microsoft's interoperability information without securing a license for patents".

A question is: Is it not foolhardy for would be competitors to based their product development on another company's products which are yet to to gain the approval of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). Taking into consideration that there is an old saying that one should quit while he or she is ahead. The thing is - If in twenty or more years of desktop computing certain companies could not shown a better performance that they have shown the world other than running to the EU to have remedies imposed on the now de-facto champion (90% market share) - what will be done differently over the next twenty years to convince users not to demonstrate the same actions that were demonstrated by European users when there was another option (EU prescribed) to the Windows Operating System with Windows Media Player. One should ask the question - what was it that was sacrificed by this agreement by the Microsoft Corporation. Thank goodness the CONCORDE is still in "moth balls". The former Clinton Administration said it best in their campaign slogan!

Are there any more "walls" to be torn down?

[lucien64]

Using the money from one product...

...to kill competitors.

In the early phase of Windows, MIcrosoft had really an advance in bringing out products for the Microsoft Windows User Interface (like Excell). Competition was slow and unwilling, that killed her.

For the Netscape story, we had Microsoft giving away his tool (browser), at a time where the competitor needed selling his tool, as that was his only revenue source.

The money from every Windows buyer went directly to the browser devellopment team, to make the Microsoft browser better. When the game was killed, there was a standstill for the Microsoft browser technology, as Microsoft moved resources to kill other competitors like Real, using the same tactics.

Why not selling Windows cheaper and competing with a media player at the same level?