Board index » delphi » Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.


2008-02-28 08:09:01 PM
delphi115
"Dominic Willems" writes:
Quote

The thought to rob you blind and risk a few laws to be broken would
never ever cross MS's sanctified mind.
Microsoft causes blindness? :)
 
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
Microsoft causes blindness? :)
They're not *that* exciting.
<g,d&r>
--
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Bob writes:
Quote
Rubish. Anyone and everyone can buy Apple and use their products if
they so choose, same for linux. There is no pretending here. Thats how
it is. Most just choose MS.
It's funny how clueless some people are. Maybe this will put things
into perspective.
edge-op.org/iowa/iowaconsumercase.org/assets/attachments/Petition.pdf
I can give you highlights:
#56 ...Moreover, OEMs and Microsoft both recognize that sellers of
Intel-compatible PCs have no commercially viable substitute for
Windows... a Gateway executive testified in that action that Gateway had
to install Windows because "[w]e don’t have a choice"
...Microsoft engaged in a series of predatory acts designed to, and
which did, eliminate competition and prevent entry in the operating
system marketplace...
(You'll like this one)
Microsoft has used its monopoly in the operating system market to
dictate the terms and conditions trader which OEMs are engaged, on
Mierosoft’s behalf and as Microsoft’s agent, to communicate Microsofi’s
offers of end-user licenses to purchasers of PCs.
End-users were the targets and foreseeable victims of Microsoft’s
anti-competitive conduct...
33. Microsoft can and has exercised this power by charging a price for
its Int¢l-eompatible PC operating system software that is substantially
above that which could be cllarged in a competitive market
As stated in this petition, "a competitive market would see prices
falling for newer versions." In other words, it is cheaper to
manufacture newer versions of the same product over time.
Obviously, I am not the only person who knows that MS has used
anti-trust methods to obliterate the competition (long ago). They
should be punished. We should have alternatives.
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
>No, I don't like paying for Microsoft's monopoly status.
>I would prefer they be broken up so that competition
>can be restored in the market place.

That was rejected on appeal in the United States v. Microsoft case.
And that was political.
Quote
>You will pay eventually - fine or no.

Does this mean there is no free beer in a free market economy?
Are you buying? :-) <g>
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Tom writes:
Quote
Wayne Niddery (TeamB) writes:
>There is nothing "anti-competitive" about being put out of business by
>a better competitor.

Correct.

>No rights are violated by winning customers from the
>competition even if it is *all* customers, nor are they violated by
>giving product away for free or bundling one with another.

Wrong! It is called "Predatory Pricing" and is illegal! (see
Anti-trust) <g>

So the next time I go to buy a computer and they bundle in a printer
with it, at no cost, I should call a lawyer? :-)
Woody (TMW)
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Wayne Niddery (TeamB) writes:
Quote
>With unethical business practices (i.e. Stac, Netscape) that title
>fits them well.

Stac, yes - an actual violation of proper patent law. Netscape no, they
got beat fair and square.
If you need a history lesson, this will provide you with accurate
representation of the past 20 years.
edge-op.org/iowa/iowaconsumercase.org/assets/attachments/Petition.pdf
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Tom writes:
Quote
It's funny how clueless some people are. Maybe this will put things
into perspective.
Yup
Quote
They should be punished. We should have alternatives.
We DO. Its just that no one (or not as many people) use them. From
this statement, it appears as if you are saying Microsoft is the only
company on the planet that has products for computers. Without them we
would have nothing. Which is utterly not true.
--
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

"Wayne Niddery (TeamB)" wrote
Quote
No because they did not form the monopoly through the use of force. They
formed their {*word*108} by getting the public to buy their goods, period.
That's an awfully black-and-white approach.
Quote
Stac, yes - an actual violation of proper patent law. Netscape no, they
got
beat fair and square.
MS gave away IE with the explicit intention of putting Netscape out of
business. I believe the actual phase from the leaked memo was that the
give-away was intended to "cut off their air supply." that is pretty classic
monopoly abuse (dumping).
Now MS had the perfect right to make IE a part of the operating system if it
wanted to, but they didn't do that: the license at the time specified that
IE was _not_ a part of windows, and that MS retained the right to start
charging for it again whenever it wanted--again, classic dumping.
The {*word*108} of MSOffice was arguably attained the same way: for about a
two year period (right after the formation of Lotus SmartSuite and the WP
Office suite) is was nearly impossible to buy a new PC that didn't have
MSOffice preinstalled because MS was dumping it to the channel. Try finding
a free MSOffice preinstall now.
Not to say that both Lotus and WordPerfect didn't make mistakes, but to say
the playing field was anywhere near level simply isn't true.
bobD
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Bob writes:
Quote
We DO. Its just that no one (or not as many people) use them. From
this statement, it appears as if you are saying Microsoft is the only
company on the planet that has products for computers. Without them we
would have nothing. Which is utterly not true.
You are entitled to your point of view, no matter how incorrect you may
be. :-) Read the petition, see the long history of underhanded
negotiations and illegal tactics.
As I said before, right now technology is stifled by MS and that is
unfortunate.
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

In article <47c5c158$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Troy Wolbrink
writes:
Quote
So are you saying Microsoft could start charing $1,000 for
Windows Vista Home Basic and still maintain sales and market
{*word*108}? Or does MS not have a monopoly?
In terms of being a price-setter rather than a price-getter, yes,
IMO. Take their pricing on Office. I can buy a copy of Office 2007
Home and Student (Word/Excel/Powerpoint) for ?9 (UK) and install
it on 3 machines. But only if for home/student use, not for
business or non-profit (in the sense of charity etc) use according
to the writing on the back of the pack.
If I am a honest business user who wants to install it on an
existing machine (i.e. not OEM/Upgrade) I have to pay ?64. It's
difficult not to see this as monopolistic pricing. The much lower
OEM price is to ensure that the user base is large enough to
require other people to buy it, since import/export is never 100%
accurate. I bought Office 2003 with gritted teeth purely for this
reason since I still use Lotus WordPro for WP.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' www.sda.co.uk
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Who knows what Dell or their purchasers would have chosen, the point is that
they weren't given that choice if they wanted to sell computers with Windows
on them. The had to have it on them.
The purchasers, as we all well know, will take what's delivered unless they
have specific needs.
The pressure was applied in the form of 'if you don't agree, you can not sell
windows at all'.
"Bob" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Jon Springs writes:

>Buyers had no choice. M$'s contracts with Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc.
>required those companies to supply Windows with each PC they sold.
>Buyers will go with what is put on the machine.
>
>Even if you didn't want Windows, you got it anyway.

So if they didnt "pressure" these computer manufacturers, would Dell et
all have chosen something else for their PCs? Sure the contracts
required them to put MS stuff on their computers. Thats why they are
contracts. Contracts are binding. MS didn't force them to accept the
contracts. They (dell etal) signed and agreed to them. Can you site
otherwise?

--

 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Tony Bryer writes:
Quote
In article <47c5c158$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Troy Wolbrink
writes:
[...]
If I am a honest business user who wants to install it on an
existing machine (i.e. not OEM/Upgrade) I have to pay ?64. It's
You should perhaps add that this will be the Professional version, which
additionally ships with Access and Outlook ... which the Home version
hasn't. By the way, if you don't need free service calls you can get
Office cheaper.
Quote
difficult not to see this as monopolistic pricing. The much lower
Well there are other Office packets with higher prices and lower prices
with a lower bound of 0€/$/?for Open Office.
Most of them are compatible with MS Office formats.
MS Office doesn't ship with Windows so I wouldn't hardly call it
monopolistic pricing, since you can get Open Office for free.
Quote
[...]
Andre
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

"Bob Dawson" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

Not to say that both Lotus and WordPerfect didn't make mistakes, but to
say
the playing field was anywhere near level simply isn't true.
Hi Bob,
I think that in a truly competitive market, the playing field is never
level. Let's illustrate that with football. Suppose your team has Jerry
Rice as a wide receiver, and my team has me as a cornerback. The referee
isn't gonna stop the game and tell your quarterback that he can not throw to
Rice until I am replaced by a better cornerback, is he? No, you compete by
finding your advantages over your competitors and exploiting those
advantages. you will throw the ball to Rice every time the ball is snapped.
That's what competition is. As my dad once told me, "Son, it is an unfair
world. Your job is to make sure that you get more than your fair share, and
when you do, give some of the extra back." I think Bill Gates is playing by
that rule, and I admire him for it.
Cheers,
Van
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

"Tom" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

As I said before, right now technology is stifled by MS and that is
unfortunate.
Hi Tom,
I don't think Steve Jobs would agree with you. Nor do I.
Cheers,
Van
 

Re: Microsoft receives a fine of about $1 billion from EU.

Jon Springs writes:
Quote
Buyers will go with what is put on the machine.
ie it is the buyers decision to leave it on there. You've proved L's
point.
Incidentally, Windows wasn't being pre-installed on machines until well
after it became the {*word*109} OS.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]