Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> nessuno wrote:
>
>> Quote: --------------
<SNIP>
>> The basis for the antitrust case is that Microsoft is
>> withholding necessary information from people who want to
>> write software that interoperates with its servers.
>> There's nothing obscure there. No room for ambiguity.
>> ------------ End quote
>>
>> http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39278588,00.htm
>
> I quite liked the following quote:
>
> "So what is Microsoft hiding? Trade secrets be damned: the
> only thing it needs to hide from the world is why it makes
> such a mess of things such as WinFS. And is a sense of
> shame enough to explain why the company would rather pay
> huge fines than just publish the interface and move on?"
Usually, one would think that providing the protocol and
rules used would not be such a big deal. Perhaps there is
"funny code" similar to the Halloween code in beta Windows
3.1 that caused the OS to crash if a non-Microsoft DOS was
detected? If non-Microsoft server is detected, client does
not respond until accepted and authenticated by a genuine
Microsoft server? A genuine Microsoft server must be ever
present for the network to work?
Microsoft's refusal to cooperate and willingness to entertain
huge fines does seem to indicate there is something amiss.
It will be interesting to see if EU justice system has any
teeth. A praise worthy precedent will be set if it does not
back down from their stance. (I was disappointed to see the
US justice system back down with a much watered down decision
over anti-competitive practices.)
--
HPT
|
|
