Neelie Kroes, competition commissioner for the European Union, apparently earned her nickname because she's tough in the same vein as U.K. "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher.
But the former Netherlands transportation minister has demonstrated that she has no qualms about tangling with Fortune 500 companies. Just ask Microsoft.
On Wednesday, Kroes responded via e-mail to questions from CNET News.com about the fine.
Q: Now that the decision has been made to fine Microsoft, what methodology was used to determine the size of the fine? After all, a range of zero to 2 million euros per day is quite wide.
Kroes: The European Commission formally warned Microsoft in November last year that it would be liable to a daily penalty payment of 2 million euros per day should it, as from Dec. 15, 2005, not comply with its obligations to: (1) provide complete and accurate interoperability information; and (2) provide that information on reasonable terms.
The daily penalty payment of 1.5 million euros that the Commission has imposed today for noncompliance on the first of these points reflects the fact that the failure to provide complete and accurate interoperability information has largely eliminated the effectiveness of the remedy.
Video: EU fines Microsoft again Neelie Kroes, Europe's competition commissioner, announces the ruling against Microsoft.
Therefore, the Commission has taken the view that Microsoft's failure to comply in this respect should at this stage constitute a larger part of the 2 million euros daily penalty payment identified in November 2005. This also means that the remainder of the 2 million euros per day (i.e. 0.5 million euros) may be imposed subsequently for the period in question, should the Commission come to the conclusion that the terms on which Microsoft has made the interoperability information available are not reasonable.
How did you determine the exact cutoff date for the fine? What were the specific events that occurred to make that particular date the one you chose?
Kroes: The cutoff date was June 20 this year. As Microsoft has been submitting a large amount of revised interoperability information after that date, it is not possible to make an assessment of whether Microsoft has complied with its obligations after then.
When did you notify Microsoft of your decision to fine the company and the size of the fine? What was the company's reaction? Kroes: The decision was formally notified to the company this morning. I am afraid that I cannot therefore comment on Microsoft's reaction, and nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.
How confident are you that this fine will act as a deterrent to Microsoft in the future? And why do you feel this way? Kroes: I regret that the Commission has had to take such a step today, but given Microsoft's continued noncompliance to date, I have been left with no alternative. Today's decision reflects my determination to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations. I sincerely hope that this decision, together with the higher potential daily penalty payment of 3 million euros from July 31, 2006, in the event of noncompliance after that date, will mean that Microsoft will now comply.
News.com Poll
Do you believe Microsoft answered your questions truthfully?
Kroes: Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterization--Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then.
Indeed, the monitoring trustee appointed in October 2005, from a shortlist put forward by Microsoft, believes that the decision clearly outlines what Microsoft is required to do. I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.
Have you seen changes in the way Microsoft is handling Vista since making a public announcement in March that you also had antitrust concerns regarding its pending operating system? Kroes: It is true that I informed Microsoft of my view that it should take into account the general principles of the 2004 decision when designing Vista in order to avoid potential problems when that product is released. Indeed, Microsoft sought input on these issues from the Commission. However, it is premature to speculate on Vista, since that product will not be launched until next year.
Bill Gates and Steve Balmer should be serving jail time, im my opinion, for all the harm they have cause to society. But at least this is a step in the right direction.
Harm to society? Here are just a few of the things Bill Gates has done recenlty in the name of helping his fellow human being (there are many more examples):
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$30 million for the foundation of the new Department of Global Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. The donation promoted three of the Foundation's target areas: education, Pacific Northwest and global health.
...for the money grubbing eu. Exactly what harm to society are you referring to, the near extinction of western civilization brought about by the bundling of a media player with an OS?
Alot of things about M$ stink but this is nothing more than a money grab by the eu.
Bill Gates and Steve Balmer should be serving jail time, im my opinion, for all the harm they have cause to society. But at least this is a step in the right direction.
...for the money grubbing eu. Exactly what harm to society are you referring to, the near extinction of western civilization brought about by the bundling of a media player with an OS?
Alot of things about M$ stink but this is nothing more than a money grab by the eu.
Harm to society? Here are just a few of the things Bill Gates has done recenlty in the name of helping his fellow human being (there are many more examples):
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.
I would ignore the fine. What is the EU gonna do? Send the French after us? By the time a decision to cut off Windows XP sales in Europe, new products will be available. This simply appears to me as the EU trying to show it's 'tough', when in reality, europe the equivelent to NY, too mad at each other to really be effective as a whole.
I would ignore the fine. What is the EU gonna do? Send the French after us? By the time a decision to cut off Windows XP sales in Europe, new products will be available. This simply appears to me as the EU trying to show it's 'tough', when in reality, europe the equivelent to NY, too mad at each other to really be effective as a whole.
MS has made huge contributions to the US economy and its many shareholders.
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.
Microsoft is arrogant and is playing king of the hill with their own set of rules that keeps them winning even when they're not supposed to.
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.
MS has made huge contributions to the US economy and its many shareholders.
-> 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:
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.
MS has made huge contributions to the US economy and its many shareholders.
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.
Microsoft is arrogant and is playing king of the hill with their own set of rules that keeps them winning even when they're not supposed to.
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.
MS has made huge contributions to the US economy and its many shareholders.
-> 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:
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.
This is silly. Does anyone think this would be happening if Microsoft was a French or German company? It's just anti american euro trash trying to push around a US company. MS should just say fine, Europe doesn't want us we don't need them. Walk away from the market and let the Euro turds see how well their computers work with microsoft.
The best thing that could possibly happen would be for M$ to walk away from Europe. Imagine all that brainpower going toward open source. That wouldn't just be shooting themselves in the foot. It would be more like dropping a grenade down their pants!
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
This is silly. Does anyone think this would be happening if Microsoft was a French or German company? It's just anti american euro trash trying to push around a US company. MS should just say fine, Europe doesn't want us we don't need them. Walk away from the market and let the Euro turds see how well their computers work with microsoft.
The best thing that could possibly happen would be for M$ to walk away from Europe. Imagine all that brainpower going toward open source. That wouldn't just be shooting themselves in the foot. It would be more like dropping a grenade down their pants!
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
People by buying products and services in a free market are doing this very thing, voluntarily. Microsoft is a large company, just because of the fact, that people voluntarily buy their softwares. In practise, people have voted for Microsofts services and are still voting for them. If consumers thought, for instance in the past, like EU bureaucrats, that Microsoft, is getting to large , they would have had shopped elsewhere, even if it was more expensive or that alternative softwares did not entirely fulfil their needs. Why, because it would be a value, in this very example, for the consumers to do so. But the consumers did not shop elsewhere and are still not shopping elsewhere (even when it is free), which means that they were and are, happy with Microsoft and this story is only about politics. If we want to question peoples choices and votes , we should also question peoples votes when there are political elections. Why not, then, split political parties which are in power ? We could then argue that people didnt really vote for them, it was brilliant advertising and so on, that made the choice for them . If Microsoft wants to have IE built into its operating system, they have a right to do so. It is their product. I, myself, like Firefox (and I think, IE 7 might be secure and good too), but I do believe that Microsoft is doing its customers a great service. This because, most customers do not download an alternative browser, which means that they are happy with IE. Even if it is true that earlier IE browsers have not been so secure and good. Naturally, Microsoft has the right, as any company, to keep its secrets. This is natural and has nothing to do with so called monopolistic behaviour . How would a market function properly if companies were complied to inform others of their top secrets? Even without copyright protection, they have the right to keep them. Or, should we force pharmaceutical companies to inform their competitors of their secrets too? This might spur competition! We must consider the fact that the more attractive operating system Microsoft delivers, the better price they get and the more of them will they sell. Microsoft, for example, does a lot of things to make its new operating system attractive (the Vista version). The market price mechanism functions in this way. Bureaucrats do not have this mechanism and can not know what people really want! Microsoft also, naturally, has the right to offer any file system they want and if we consider mentioned price mechanism and one of the very reasons of Microsofts success, which was standardization, we can get a clue that Microsoft is doing the right thing or at least is trying to do the right thing (we are all humans and can therefore make mistakes). Björn Lundahl, Göteborg, Sweden
M$ obtained it's dominant position by the use of all manor of unfair and illegal market manipulations. To even attempt to infer that it was due to any sort of product superiority is plain bologna!
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.
People aren't buying M$ products voluntarily - for example, if you go into any computer store in the UK you have to buy the computer with M$ Windoze pre-installed. That's not voluntarily.. that's the only option. It's bullying.
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.
People by buying products and services in a free market are doing this very thing, voluntarily. Microsoft is a large company, just because of the fact, that people voluntarily buy their softwares. In practise, people have voted for Microsofts services and are still voting for them. If consumers thought, for instance in the past, like EU bureaucrats, that Microsoft, is getting to large , they would have had shopped elsewhere, even if it was more expensive or that alternative softwares did not entirely fulfil their needs. Why, because it would be a value, in this very example, for the consumers to do so. But the consumers did not shop elsewhere and are still not shopping elsewhere (even when it is free), which means that they were and are, happy with Microsoft and this story is only about politics. If we want to question peoples choices and votes , we should also question peoples votes when there are political elections. Why not, then, split political parties which are in power ? We could then argue that people didnt really vote for them, it was brilliant advertising and so on, that made the choice for them . If Microsoft wants to have IE built into its operating system, they have a right to do so. It is their product. I, myself, like Firefox (and I think, IE 7 might be secure and good too), but I do believe that Microsoft is doing its customers a great service. This because, most customers do not download an alternative browser, which means that they are happy with IE. Even if it is true that earlier IE browsers have not been so secure and good. Naturally, Microsoft has the right, as any company, to keep its secrets. This is natural and has nothing to do with so called monopolistic behaviour . How would a market function properly if companies were complied to inform others of their top secrets? Even without copyright protection, they have the right to keep them. Or, should we force pharmaceutical companies to inform their competitors of their secrets too? This might spur competition! We must consider the fact that the more attractive operating system Microsoft delivers, the better price they get and the more of them will they sell. Microsoft, for example, does a lot of things to make its new operating system attractive (the Vista version). The market price mechanism functions in this way. Bureaucrats do not have this mechanism and can not know what people really want! Microsoft also, naturally, has the right to offer any file system they want and if we consider mentioned price mechanism and one of the very reasons of Microsofts success, which was standardization, we can get a clue that Microsoft is doing the right thing or at least is trying to do the right thing (we are all humans and can therefore make mistakes). Björn Lundahl, Göteborg, Sweden
M$ obtained it's dominant position by the use of all manor of unfair and illegal market manipulations. To even attempt to infer that it was due to any sort of product superiority is plain bologna!
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.
People aren't buying M$ products voluntarily - for example, if you go into any computer store in the UK you have to buy the computer with M$ Windoze pre-installed. That's not voluntarily.. that's the only option. It's bullying.
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.
If I were Microsoft I would say FINE too, who needs a bunch of communist ingrates. MS needs sales in the (ooooh) EU like I need a third shoe. I would pull all products; all support for any currently owned products and let them FINE that if you will. The EU is not the end all to be all, and IMHO it will be the down fall of Europe. (You guys give up your individual identity to let some bureaucrats dictate policy and take away your money, and give you that play money, ah the euro, only worth something to all those lying, stealing politicians at the head of the EU)
The best thing that could possibly happen would be for M$ to walk away from Europe. Imagine all that brainpower going toward open source. That wouldn't just be shooting themselves in the foot. It would be more like dropping a grenade down their pants!
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
If MS thinks it can make more that $357 million in EU in the future, it will pay the fine... otherwise it won't (unless they are legally bound to pay).
It's not about ego, just the bottomline... how much will be the net benefit to the company
If I were Microsoft I would say FINE too, who needs a bunch of communist ingrates. MS needs sales in the (ooooh) EU like I need a third shoe. I would pull all products; all support for any currently owned products and let them FINE that if you will. The EU is not the end all to be all, and IMHO it will be the down fall of Europe. (You guys give up your individual identity to let some bureaucrats dictate policy and take away your money, and give you that play money, ah the euro, only worth something to all those lying, stealing politicians at the head of the EU)
The best thing that could possibly happen would be for M$ to walk away from Europe. Imagine all that brainpower going toward open source. That wouldn't just be shooting themselves in the foot. It would be more like dropping a grenade down their pants!
Please! Please! Please! Do it M$! Walk away and improve the desktop for generations to come!
If MS thinks it can make more that $357 million in EU in the future, it will pay the fine... otherwise it won't (unless they are legally bound to pay).
It's not about ego, just the bottomline... how much will be the net benefit to the company
That effeminate poseur Steve "Chairs" Ballmer has an opportunity to prove he's got something to recommend him to lead the largest software company in the world besides being Bill Gates' college roommate. Steve, it is time to put down that chair, forego your interests in interior decoration for while and break some heads for the sake of your shareholders. Hire Executive Outcomes, Inc. to organize a mercenary army, seize Brussels and take that savage communist Nellie hostage. Your demands: drop the fines or you eat Nellie alive on MSNBC. Otherwise, the world will know you for the pillow-biting slave to petty bureaucracies that you really are. Mount bayonets, twist and shout, or go down in history as Microsoft's last CEO, the one that led it to its demise. Choose, Stevie-cakes. Choose.
That effeminate poseur Steve "Chairs" Ballmer has an opportunity to prove he's got something to recommend him to lead the largest software company in the world besides being Bill Gates' college roommate. Steve, it is time to put down that chair, forego your interests in interior decoration for while and break some heads for the sake of your shareholders. Hire Executive Outcomes, Inc. to organize a mercenary army, seize Brussels and take that savage communist Nellie hostage. Your demands: drop the fines or you eat Nellie alive on MSNBC. Otherwise, the world will know you for the pillow-biting slave to petty bureaucracies that you really are. Mount bayonets, twist and shout, or go down in history as Microsoft's last CEO, the one that led it to its demise. Choose, Stevie-cakes. Choose.
That effeminate poseur Steve "Chairs" Ballmer has an opportunity to prove he's got something to recommend him to lead the largest software company in the world besides being Bill Gates' college roommate. Steve, it is time to put down that chair, forego your interests in interior decoration for while and break some heads for the sake of your shareholders. Hire Executive Outcomes, Inc. to organize a mercenary army, seize Brussels and take that savage communist Nellie hostage. Your demands: drop the fines or you eat Nellie alive on MSNBC. Otherwise, the world will know you for the pillow-biting slave to petty bureaucracies that you really are. Mount bayonets, twist and shout, or go down in history as Microsoft's last CEO, the one that led the company to its demise. Choose, Stevie-cakes. Choose.
That effeminate poseur Steve "Chairs" Ballmer has an opportunity to prove he's got something to recommend him to lead the largest software company in the world besides being Bill Gates' college roommate. Steve, it is time to put down that chair, forego your interests in interior decoration for while and break some heads for the sake of your shareholders. Hire Executive Outcomes, Inc. to organize a mercenary army, seize Brussels and take that savage communist Nellie hostage. Your demands: drop the fines or you eat Nellie alive on MSNBC. Otherwise, the world will know you for the pillow-biting slave to petty bureaucracies that you really are. Mount bayonets, twist and shout, or go down in history as Microsoft's last CEO, the one that led the company to its demise. Choose, Stevie-cakes. Choose.
... by Neelie Kroes, competition commissioner for the European Union is an apparent travesty of certain US Laws in her attempt to favour a number of Microsoft competitors, from Oracle to Sun Microsystems to RealNetworks as the US Courts have ruled that "Software Patents for Methods of Doing BusinessA Second Class Citizen No More":
"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. **********, 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.!
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
Whether Apple will release a new iPad next month doesn't seem to be the question as much as what day it will happen. A new rumor has it down to the day.
Tommy Jordan, the man who shot his daughter's laptop for YouTube, gets a visit from police and child protection services. Oh, and Good Morning America.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
As UC Berkeley students, the co-founders of "Back to the Roots" discovered they could grow mushrooms using recycled coffee grounds. Now their mushroom kit sells at grocery stores across the country.
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. **********, 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.!