__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 20 July 2006 09:15 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> arachnid <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:39:12 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 20 July 2006 01:24 B Gruff wrote:
>>>
>>>> "If a manufacturer wants to set competing search services ... by
>>>> default, they can do so," Smith said in a speech at the New America
>>>> Foundation, a Washington public policy institute"
>>>
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyid=2006-07-19T174650Z_01_N19247245_RTRUKOC_0_US-MICROSOFT-PRINCIPLES.xml
>>>
>>> - and a slightly more far-reaching report from the BBC:-
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5196836.stm
>>>
>>> "Promising not to retaliate against computer makers that support
>>> non-Microsoft software"?
>>> I don't understand that - are they saying that they do at the moment,
>>> then?
>>
>> I wonder if they'll continue to not retaliate if they win their appeal
>> against the E.C. fine?
>
> I don't think that they'll ever pay the EU fine myself. I'm sure
> they're begging the US government to try to bully the EU into abandoning
> the case, or trying to bribe the commissioner, or threaten the
> commissioner or undermine the commissioner, or, in fact, any underhand
> trick that they can come up with.
I doubt the commissioner will reverse the decision owing to
a free copy of (oops! I mean "licence of") Windows Vista.
Microsoft's art of paying with licences (no production
costs) is best demonstated in regions such as Africa where
use of computers is low (thus, it's very much like a lost
market).
|
|
