It was on, or about, Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:40:47 +0900, that as I was
halfway through a large jam doughnut, High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper on Sunday:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Jerry McBride on Sunday:
>>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have seen the effects of "embrace, extend, extinguish". OOXML's
>>>>>> lack of adherence to standards makes it a poor model to employ as a
>>>>>> standard. Remember, it is possible for even Microsoft Office to be
>>>>>> ODF compatible (until they broke it by bypassing the ODF filter in
>>>>>> Office 2007 during file opening, rendering it useless).
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes for great reading... It's hard to believe that there's an
>>>>> actual business in filling bittorrent with bogus files... Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> New vids on Monday's decision. FWIW:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZgBFhMP5g
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLEN90KO14
>>>
>>> Those videos are interesting. I like Commissioner Neelie Kroes'
>>> comment on the some 12,000 pages plus offers of source code from
>>> Microsoft. She simply stated, "I prefer quality over quantity."
>>>
>>> It shouldn't take 12,000 pages to document network connectivity.
>>
>> Exactly. And then you have like 30,000 pages of legal documents. They
>> DDOS at EC.
>
> Just saw this, finally in:
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5140413.html
>
> [quote]
> Sept. 17, 2007, 4:33AM
> EU Court Upholds Microsoft's $613M Fine
>
> By MATT MOORE AP Business Writer
> © 2007 The Associated Press
>
> LUXEMBOURG — A European Union court on Monday dismissed Microsoft
> Corp.'s appeal against an EU antitrust order that ordered it to share
> communications code with rivals and sell a copy of Windows without Media
> Player.
>
> It also upheld a $613 million fine _ the largest ever levied by EU
> regulators.
>
> The EU Court of First Instance ruled against Microsoft on both parts of
> the case, saying the European Commission was correct in concluding that
> Microsoft was guilty of monopoly abuse in trying to use its power over
> desktop computers to muscle into server software.
> [/quote]
>
> Here is the announcement from 1st Court of Instance:
>
> http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070063en.pdf
>
> PRESS RELEASE No 63/07
> 17 September 2007
> Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.
> v Commission of the European Communities
>
> THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ESSENTIALLY UPHOLDS THE COMMISSION’S
> DECISION FINDING THAT MICROSOFT ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION
>
> [quote]
> On 23 March 2004 the European Commission adopted a decision finding that
> Microsoft had infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty by abusing its
> dominant position by engaging in two separate types of conduct. The
> Commission also imposed a fine of more than EUR 497 million on
> Microsoft.
>
> The first type of conduct found to constitute an abuse consisted in
> Microsoft’s refusal to supply its competitors with ‘interoperability
> information’ and to authorise them to use that information to develop
> and distribute products competing with its own products on the work
> group server operating system market, between October 1998 and the date
> of adoption of the decision. By way of remedy, the Commission required
> Microsoft to disclose the ‘specifications’ of its client/server and
> server/server communication protocols to any undertaking wishing to
> develop and distribute work group server operating systems.
>
> The second type of conduct to which the Commission took exception was
> the tying of Windows Media Player with the Windows PC operating system.
> The Commission considered that that practice affected competition on the
> media player market. By way of remedy, the Commission required Microsoft
> to offer for sale a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.
> [/quote]
>
> [quote]
> Last, the Court rejects Microsoft’s arguments to the effect that the
> refusal is objectively justified because the technology concerned is
> covered by intellectual property rights. The Court notes that such
> justification would render ineffective the principles established in the
> case-law which are referred to above. The Court further considers that
> Microsoft has failed to show that if it were required to disclose the
> interoperability information that would have a significant negative
> effect on its incentives to innovate.
>
> The Court therefore upholds the part of the decision concerning
> interoperability.
> [/quote]
>
> I am glad to see that the EU courts did not back down and backed
> Commissioner Neelie Kroes' cabinet in their decision, upholding the
> fines. I am glad to see that Ms. Kroes has moral fibre to not give into
> convenience.
>
> This ought to give Linux a boost where it is needed in the desktop
> server market.
Excellent!
--
Surely you are not comparing the non-existent Linux (at that time) with
(Windows)98? - Hadron aka Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, & Damian O'Leary
comp.os.linux.advocacy - Thu, 16 Aug 2007
Message-ID: <npk5rvzafy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
