7 wrote:
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
7 wrote:
nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
<Quote>
Developers of software and services, [Opera Software's top developer]
remarked, shouldn't have to "attach them to something which is
proprietary."
"On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking
the next step towards restoring competition in a market that Microsoft
has strangled for more than a decade, wrote...Opera's CEO. "...the
Commission is serious about getting Microsoft to start competing on
the merits in the browser market and letting consumers have a real
choice of Internet browsers."
A serious point the EU is pursuing is that micoshaft agreed with US
authorities to not bundle exlpoder with OS in 2002.
I notice you've made this point in a couple of threads. I haven't
checked the nitty gritty but I hope you're wrong, because if you're
right then the EU anti trust authorities are setting a dangerous
precedent there that EU anti trust law could be interpreted as dictated
by Washington. The EU case against MS should be on what has happened in
the EU alone.
That is correct - but a committment made in the US
is valid if the committment it made in US extended past its border.
In other words, they made a promise in USA to cover EU since
micoshaft operated in EU, the EU merely has to trust the
committments made in the USA to not act. Otherwise, all
authorities around the world would act in concert if the promises
it made in US excluded them. Thats not unusual - many of the
plaintiffs operate globally and they would continue to shift
the lawsuit venues around the globe until the matter
is fully resolved.
Micoshaft has chosen to break the promises it made in 2002
and EU is acting now as it would have in 2002.
Any lawsuit against MS in the EU should take no notice of any agreement
made between MS and the US, even if it covered the EU. The US does not
govern the EU.
|
|
