Manage updates with the Download App
- Related Stories
-
Antitrust angst for Microsoft
July 12, 2006 -
EU knocks Microsoft with $357 million fine
July 12, 2006 -
EU to probe Microsoft-Time Warner buy
August 25, 2004 -
Europe plays hardball with Microsoft
March 24, 2004
(continued from previous page)
I nevertheless take note that a significant number of companies, both European and American, are expressing concerns to us on the potential competition implications of Vista. We are still in contact with Microsoft concerning Vista and of course expect Microsoft to ensure that Vista will be fully compliant with the EU's competition rules.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates recently announced that he's stepping down from any daily involvement with the company in the coming two years. What impact, if at all, do you think this will have on the Commission's relationship with Microsoft?
Kroes: The Commission enforces the EU competition rules in light of the applicable treaty provisions and court jurisprudence, and on the basis of the specific factual circumstances of each individual case. Personal working relationships do not, therefore, in themselves influence how we enforce competition policy. Having said that, it has always been the case that our working relationship with Microsoft has been characterized by courtesy and professionalism at all levels.
More specifically, did the Commission ever suggest to Microsoft that the relationship between the software giant and the Commission could improve if Gates were less involved with the company, prior to his announcement of relinquishing his chief software architect role?
Kroes: Absolutely not. As I have outlined, such issues do not influence the way the Commission enforces competition policy. In any case, I should point out that my contacts have been with (Microsoft CEO Steve) Ballmer.
Microsoft, meanwhile, is appealing your 2004 order. What happens to the fines it already paid if the Court of First Instance rules in its favor?
Kroes: Microsoft has paid the money into a "blocked account." Should the Court of First Instance rule in Microsoft's favor, that money will be repaid to Microsoft, with interest.
Would competition be improved if the U.S. District Court's original ruling--that Microsoft be broken up--had been carried out?
Kroes: I can only comment on the Commission's decision, where remedies were imposed to restore effective competition in the concerned markets on the basis of the specific factual and legal circumstances before us. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on competition decisions taken by the U.S. authorities.
See more CNET content tagged:
euro, commission, antitrust, obligation, European Union
118 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
RSS
Subscribemy Yahoo
Add this FeedGoogle
Add this FeedMSN
Add this Feed
1. Global health:
-Gave The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization a donation of US$750 million on 25 January 2005.
-Gave The Institute for OneWorld Health a donation of nearly US$10 million to support the organization's work on a drug for visceral leishmaniasis (VL).
-Gave the Children's Vaccine Program, run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), a donation of US$27 million to help vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis on 9 December 2003.
-Gave approximately US$30 million for the foundation of the new Department of Global Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. The donation promoted three of the Foundation's target areas: education, Pacific Northwest and global health.
Alot of things about M$ stink but this is nothing more than a money grab by the eu.
Alot of things about M$ stink but this is nothing more than a money grab by the eu.
1. Global health:
-Gave The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization a donation of US$750 million on 25 January 2005.
-Gave The Institute for OneWorld Health a donation of nearly US$10 million to support the organization's work on a drug for visceral leishmaniasis (VL).
-Gave the Children's Vaccine Program, run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), a donation of US$27 million to help vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis on 9 December 2003.
-Gave approximately US$30 million for the foundation of the new Department of Global Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. The donation promoted three of the Foundation's target areas: education, Pacific Northwest and global health.
"... Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability."
Well, Microsoft DOES understand the principles of how to document protocols in order NOT to achieve interoperability.
"... Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability."
Well, Microsoft DOES understand the principles of how to document protocols in order NOT to achieve interoperability.
Not to mention the advances they have contributed to the IT industry. Do not tell me otherwise, if you even think that your are smallminded.
If not MS, then RedHat, whoever. IT has been placed into the hands of the common man. Internet connectivity has exploded in the past decade. Before Win95, who had access to the vast amount of info which they do today?
I don't care if it was MS or Novell or your grandma, someone was going to lead the charge of making PCs commonplace in the home. The marketplace was wide open and MS took the lead. No one ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or a Linux system. Business is business, someone has to be #1 in the market. Maybe they will fine Lance Armstrong next cause no one from the the EU could beat him out. I guess that was unfair too.
If the EU doesn't like it tough. I wish MS would quit selling them software to be honest. Of course they would not since this would be a bad business decision. Let's see the EU develop their own OS and IT solutions and then we will fine them if they become successful.
Maybe they should fine Coca-Cola and KFC for holding out their secret recipes. What a joke. A bunch of whiners with their thunbs in their butt - didn't produce any of their own solutions, cannot compete so they cry no fair and stick their hands out.
I stopped using Windows a couple of weeks ago and I haven't regretted it. Ubuntu (a wonderful Linux distribution) fullfills most of my needs and it has several advantages that Microsoft never could have:
* It's free
* It's open so everyone who wants can change and contribute
* The developement is driving by what people wants and not what the company thinks that the people wants.
I must say in a childish way that I'm so happy that Microsoft got this fine to pay. Hopefully one day they will learn something good from the Linux and especially the Open Source community and implement it in a stable system.
-> yup, thats a given.
Not to mention the advances they have contributed to the IT industry. Do not tell me otherwise, if you even think that your are smallminded.
-> Ummm Microsoft didn't even have a TCP/IP stack until Win95. and who do you think created/invented the TCP/IP Protocol yep BSD/Unix (Berkeley System design) as well as DNS, sendmail,..., if it wasn't for BSD/Unix(and more important the truly Open BSD-License) the Internet
as "you" know it wouldn't even exist.
If not MS, then RedHat, whoever. IT has been placed into the hands of the common man.
->err was, thanks to Microsoft's DRM the common man (they hope)is now about to become a hunted prisoner of the Internet.
Internet connectivity has exploded in the past decade. Before Win95, who had access to the vast amount of info which they do today?
Yes i agree, and Its because of the "Internet" that Win95 was made -otherwise it was gonna be lights-out for Redmond-Microsoft.
I don't care if it was MS or Novell or your grandma, someone was going to lead the charge of making PCs commonplace in the home. The marketplace was wide open and MS took the lead. No one ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or a Linux system. Business is business, someone has to be #1 in the market. Maybe they will fine Lance Armstrong next cause no one from the the EU could beat him out. I guess that was unfair too.
If the EU doesn't like it tough. I wish MS would quit selling them software to be honest. Of course they would not since this would be a bad business decision. Let's see the EU develop their own OS and IT solutions and then we will fine them if they become successful.
-> yes I agree, and case in point, I can't see how they could be un-successful with so many alternative and powerful NOS's like:
www.opensolaris.com (aka www.sun.com)
www.linux.org
www.freebsd.org
www.netbsd.org
www.openbsd.org
Maybe they should fine Coca-Cola and KFC for holding out their secret recipes. What a joke. A bunch of whiners with their thunbs in their butt - didn't produce any of their own solutions, cannot compete so they cry no fair and stick their hands out.
Actually, The Intenet as you rightuflly said "belongs" to the common man.
Therefore no single/multi entity and/or Corporation (and I DO Mean Microsoft) should try to own/control/manage it. They shouldn't muss around with something that was never theirs' to own in the first place -which brings us back to the purpose behind that most elegant of IT building-block Standards, the TCP/IP Protocol. So, try thinking of it this way, the EU wants to preserve and protect that most public of standards for their people, and maybe for the world if we would only clean the PooPoo out of our eyes, and ears. just as you would want to protect your own family -I would hope!
And that "Freedom" isn't just for Americans, its for all mankind.
Not to mention the advances they have contributed to the IT industry. Do not tell me otherwise, if you even think that your are smallminded.
If not MS, then RedHat, whoever. IT has been placed into the hands of the common man. Internet connectivity has exploded in the past decade. Before Win95, who had access to the vast amount of info which they do today?
I don't care if it was MS or Novell or your grandma, someone was going to lead the charge of making PCs commonplace in the home. The marketplace was wide open and MS took the lead. No one ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or a Linux system. Business is business, someone has to be #1 in the market. Maybe they will fine Lance Armstrong next cause no one from the the EU could beat him out. I guess that was unfair too.
If the EU doesn't like it tough. I wish MS would quit selling them software to be honest. Of course they would not since this would be a bad business decision. Let's see the EU develop their own OS and IT solutions and then we will fine them if they become successful.
Maybe they should fine Coca-Cola and KFC for holding out their secret recipes. What a joke. A bunch of whiners with their thunbs in their butt - didn't produce any of their own solutions, cannot compete so they cry no fair and stick their hands out.
I stopped using Windows a couple of weeks ago and I haven't regretted it. Ubuntu (a wonderful Linux distribution) fullfills most of my needs and it has several advantages that Microsoft never could have:
* It's free
* It's open so everyone who wants can change and contribute
* The developement is driving by what people wants and not what the company thinks that the people wants.
I must say in a childish way that I'm so happy that Microsoft got this fine to pay. Hopefully one day they will learn something good from the Linux and especially the Open Source community and implement it in a stable system.
-> yup, thats a given.
Not to mention the advances they have contributed to the IT industry. Do not tell me otherwise, if you even think that your are smallminded.
-> Ummm Microsoft didn't even have a TCP/IP stack until Win95. and who do you think created/invented the TCP/IP Protocol yep BSD/Unix (Berkeley System design) as well as DNS, sendmail,..., if it wasn't for BSD/Unix(and more important the truly Open BSD-License) the Internet
as "you" know it wouldn't even exist.
If not MS, then RedHat, whoever. IT has been placed into the hands of the common man.
->err was, thanks to Microsoft's DRM the common man (they hope)is now about to become a hunted prisoner of the Internet.
Internet connectivity has exploded in the past decade. Before Win95, who had access to the vast amount of info which they do today?
Yes i agree, and Its because of the "Internet" that Win95 was made -otherwise it was gonna be lights-out for Redmond-Microsoft.
I don't care if it was MS or Novell or your grandma, someone was going to lead the charge of making PCs commonplace in the home. The marketplace was wide open and MS took the lead. No one ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or a Linux system. Business is business, someone has to be #1 in the market. Maybe they will fine Lance Armstrong next cause no one from the the EU could beat him out. I guess that was unfair too.
If the EU doesn't like it tough. I wish MS would quit selling them software to be honest. Of course they would not since this would be a bad business decision. Let's see the EU develop their own OS and IT solutions and then we will fine them if they become successful.
-> yes I agree, and case in point, I can't see how they could be un-successful with so many alternative and powerful NOS's like:
www.opensolaris.com (aka www.sun.com)
www.linux.org
www.freebsd.org
www.netbsd.org
www.openbsd.org
Maybe they should fine Coca-Cola and KFC for holding out their secret recipes. What a joke. A bunch of whiners with their thunbs in their butt - didn't produce any of their own solutions, cannot compete so they cry no fair and stick their hands out.
Actually, The Intenet as you rightuflly said "belongs" to the common man.
Therefore no single/multi entity and/or Corporation (and I DO Mean Microsoft) should try to own/control/manage it. They shouldn't muss around with something that was never theirs' to own in the first place -which brings us back to the purpose behind that most elegant of IT building-block Standards, the TCP/IP Protocol. So, try thinking of it this way, the EU wants to preserve and protect that most public of standards for their people, and maybe for the world if we would only clean the PooPoo out of our eyes, and ears. just as you would want to protect your own family -I would hope!
And that "Freedom" isn't just for Americans, its for all mankind.
You obviously haven't thought this one through.
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
You obviously haven't thought this one through.
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
All the double talk will not change the fact that a monopoly is NOT the same as a free market. And that monopoly has done nothing more then enhance its' own interests at the expense of everyone else.
To this day, M$ is unable to create any software that could survive without the advantage of their desktop. Unfortunately they have managed to kill any real competition while it was still in the womb.
Your argument is just smoke and mirrors and would convince only those who still can't manage to install a program on their own. If M$ continues to abuse it's power to circumvent the public benefits of a free market then let them pay the price for their arrogance.
As for bundling IE with Windoze.. why not bundle Firefox and at least give people the choice? Because M$ is all about control - they want to impose their own "standards" (compare IE6 & IE7 W3C compliancy compared to the open-source alternatives), they need people to depend on their software - otherwise they have no market. Rather than make it appealing they are relying on the fact that most people use their products - not generally out of choice but because they are not aware of any choice.
Personally, I use Linux, Firefox and Open Office to run my business - not out of anti-Microsoft sentiment but because it's much, much better.
All the double talk will not change the fact that a monopoly is NOT the same as a free market. And that monopoly has done nothing more then enhance its' own interests at the expense of everyone else.
To this day, M$ is unable to create any software that could survive without the advantage of their desktop. Unfortunately they have managed to kill any real competition while it was still in the womb.
Your argument is just smoke and mirrors and would convince only those who still can't manage to install a program on their own. If M$ continues to abuse it's power to circumvent the public benefits of a free market then let them pay the price for their arrogance.
As for bundling IE with Windoze.. why not bundle Firefox and at least give people the choice? Because M$ is all about control - they want to impose their own "standards" (compare IE6 & IE7 W3C compliancy compared to the open-source alternatives), they need people to depend on their software - otherwise they have no market. Rather than make it appealing they are relying on the fact that most people use their products - not generally out of choice but because they are not aware of any choice.
Personally, I use Linux, Firefox and Open Office to run my business - not out of anti-Microsoft sentiment but because it's much, much better.
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
It's not about ego, just the bottomline... how much will be the net benefit to the company
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
It's not about ego, just the bottomline... how much will be the net benefit to the company
Roberto
Roberto
Roberto
Roberto
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html</a>
"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a way of doing business. First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, business methods were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.
Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.
In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the method of doing business objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds.
The State Street decision, combined with the rapid growth of e-commerce, has led to a large number of patent filings on software inventions related to a method of doing business. Amazon.com, for example, patented its 1-click system, which enhances the speed and efficiency with which a customer can place an order.
As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.
Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result. This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.
Considering the State Street ruling, it is easy to understand why the number of filings on e-commerce-type inventions has increased dramatically. These inventions may involve the sale of goods or services over the Internet, making travel arrangements, or almost any business conducted on the Internet with software that enhances the ease and speed with which information may be delivered and the transaction consummated.
With the elimination of the major hurdles to patenting a mathematical algorithm and a way of doing business, there is no logical basis for making distinctions between financial software and any other software that processes data to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. This series of changes will not alter the right to patent certain types of software inventions, which previously have been clearly patentable as a result of their performing a useful function, being part of a physical system, or being part of a unique product. For software developments where either of the two objections to patentability has been applied, however, opportunity exists for obtaining meaningful, valid patent protection. Therefore, those involved with such new technology should thoroughly evaluate the possibility of patent protection.
In view of the clarification of the law and the large number of people who are seeking patents in this area, it is important that anyone considering protecting financial software inventions make an evaluation and, if an application is to be filed, that it be filed promptly."
That said; and, since they all want to "COME TO AMERICA" then why not follow the American Way! The number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks who filed a complaint with the EU Commission should now move their operations to the EU if they wish to operate under the EU's "Zidane Head Butt" competitive game style.!