I guess the fact that IBM dumped CPM and went solely with MS-DOS as the OS for the original PC had nothing to do with it, right? Of course, the fact that Billy Boy's parents were friends with executives at the highest level of IBM at the time all this happened didn't come into play either, right? This is the foundation on which their "aggressive business plan" was built. We should all be so lucky... I mean privileged (as in the privileged few).1macker1 said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft hit by record EU fine
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Stolid said:
So let's say someone goes on a killing spree and murders people in three different states. Should tere be one trial with all three states prosecuting as one? No, because different states have different laws and different punishments for breaking those laws.
So should Microsoft be tried only once with the US, EU, and every other country and the prosecutors? No, because the laws and punishments in these countries/groupings vary. (Plus, it would probably be a logistical NIGHTMARE to get people from every country together at the same place at the same time.
)Bob
Bob who? I've been forced to use MS OSs since the beginning of time, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not saying you're making something up or anything, I'm just saying Bob must be a fairly transparent innovation or I missed something along the way (always possible).Foxer said:
Chris1127 said:So let's say someone goes on a killing spree and murders people in three different states. Should tere be one trial with all three states prosecuting as one? No, because different states have different laws and different punishments for breaking those laws.
So should Microsoft be tried only once with the US, EU, and every other country and the prosecutors? No, because the laws and punishments in these countries/groupings vary. (Plus, it would probably be a logistical NIGHTMARE to get people from every country together at the same place at the same time.
Yes, but these charges arise from distinct acts committed in different states. Alabama isn't going to prosecute for a murder committed in Georgia.
These charges against Microsoft (and remember, there wasn't a trial in Europe, so the whole double jeopardy thing is not entirely appropriate) all stem from the same act.
I have significant philosophical problems with double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions (which is a situation fairly unique to the U.S.) I am not ordinarily a "rights of the accused" person, but it just seems wrong to me that someone can be found innocent by a jury in state court, only to have to face another jury in federal court for the same act. I thought it was wrong with the Rodney King cops, and I thought it was wrong when OJ was sued in civil court for wrongful death after the jury found him not guilty a few months before.
daveL said:
Well, you missed a classic. Microsoft Bob was the shortlived GUI that was pasted over Windows 3.1 in early 95. It was designed to look like a physical office, with a checkbook, an address book, etc. It came installed on a machine I bought and I found it fairly awful - of course I'd been messing around with Windows since 1989, so I didn't need to have it "dumbed down."
The only real legacy of the project was that damn paperclip that comes with Office. He got his start with Bob, but as a dog I think.
http://toastytech.com/guis/bob2.html
Stolid said:
You're still thinking of governments as one entities and that the laws are the same. They're not. You keep trying to treat them as the same thing when they're not. For starters, governments treat identical actions differently sometimes; then you HAVE to try separately. For seconds, you keep trying to lump all the victims into one group...in a criminal case you don't do that...you treat each action separately.
And, yes...companies HAVE been tried by different governments for their actions. That's one of the things about operating internationally; if you're not willing to accept that, then don't go multi-national.
gwangung said:
No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. Of course Europeans need a legal remedy. But then, so do the Japanese, the Chinese, the Kuwaitis, and on down the line. What if the EU decided to break-up Microsoft, as was proposed here? That would have gone over like a lead balloon in the U.S. Somewhere, it has to become unfair to Microsoft.
Devil's advocate: Country X is a very large market. They are also home to Software, Inc - a new company. They want to protect their fledgling industry. Currently, like almost everyone else, nearly all comuters in X use Microsoft products. Why can't Country X determine that Microsoft is engaging in unfair bundling practices and fine them some ridiculous sum of money? Hurts a foreign company who will either have to pay up, pass the fine along to customers in X via increased price for Windows, or leave a large, lucrative market. Either way, Software, Inc wins and Country X has helped it's own.
I'm not saying this will happen, but when every multi-national is subject to the whims of every regulatory body in the world....
Something has to be arranged (perhaps it already is) through a multinational body like the WTO to insure that everyone plays fair with everyone else's companies.
Thanks, Foxer. Obviously, I never used it, but now that you've jogged my memory, I do vaguely recall reading about it.Foxer said:
Is something an innovation if it ends up being short-lived and thrown in the rubbish bin? Maybe I should qualify my original statement: MS has never SUCCESSFULLY innovated anything.
There is a difference in the charges and in the standards of proof for criminal actions and civil actions. If even one person refuses to convict--1 out of 12--the person is not found guilty in a criminal case. In a civil suit, it needs to be a simple majority. And there is also a difference between "reasonable doubt" and a preponderance of the evidence.Foxer said:
I am a mathematician, but I feel like a social studies teacher today. I can't believe the number of people who either don't know this stuff, don't understand it, or who are so closed-minded to think that the only court proceedings and punishments that matter are those that happen in the US.
SU
If you are willing to consider equivalent CLI functionality, fast user switching predates all Apple and Windows OSs. The earliest versions of Unix had the 'su' command, which allowed you to change to any user id, as long as you knew the password. If you were 'root', you didn't even have to supply the password.Bulgroz said:
A tax on success...EU should go dis-integrate!
Haven't consumers always had a choice to buy a Mac instead? Of course they have!
People want convenience and the least hassle, which is why MS users pay pay MS's price... just as Mac users pay Apple's price.
If a feeling got around the 98% of computer users that they were not getting fair value for their money, they would have started to flock to Apple as their saviour, but they just don't. People don't want to have to have to decide which browser/media player/OS is 'better' or 'nicer'...they don't care! What the hell is wrong with integration? Can't MS users run alternate OS/media players?
They believe that having a total MS 'solution' is more likely to give them the function, reliablitity, and accountability expected from computers in this age...and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, XP has provided people with acceptable reliability and its done wonders for MS's reputation.
This smell like a tax on success, with the lawyers and the EU the winners...sure as hell I bet MS customers won't see any of the fine being directed to them!
Isn't Apple a monopoly to us MAC users, didn't they kill off their own clone competition when it started to take off? Aren't they promoting an integrated, non MS 'solution'? of course, and why not! it's better for Mac users for the same reason integration is better for MS users.
Isn't the EU or any government just another monopoly, with a price to be paid for its 'service'? Its all BS! Maybe MS need to buy a group of islands, and become a government itself and tell the EU to go dis-integrate!
Haven't consumers always had a choice to buy a Mac instead? Of course they have!
People want convenience and the least hassle, which is why MS users pay pay MS's price... just as Mac users pay Apple's price.
If a feeling got around the 98% of computer users that they were not getting fair value for their money, they would have started to flock to Apple as their saviour, but they just don't. People don't want to have to have to decide which browser/media player/OS is 'better' or 'nicer'...they don't care! What the hell is wrong with integration? Can't MS users run alternate OS/media players?
They believe that having a total MS 'solution' is more likely to give them the function, reliablitity, and accountability expected from computers in this age...and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, XP has provided people with acceptable reliability and its done wonders for MS's reputation.
This smell like a tax on success, with the lawyers and the EU the winners...sure as hell I bet MS customers won't see any of the fine being directed to them!
Isn't Apple a monopoly to us MAC users, didn't they kill off their own clone competition when it started to take off? Aren't they promoting an integrated, non MS 'solution'? of course, and why not! it's better for Mac users for the same reason integration is better for MS users.
Isn't the EU or any government just another monopoly, with a price to be paid for its 'service'? Its all BS! Maybe MS need to buy a group of islands, and become a government itself and tell the EU to go dis-integrate!
I have not read all the messages, but...
Does everybody know why all browsers on the Mac except for Safari (and probably Omniweb), in essence all Mozilla products plus Opera, iCab (and in principle Explorer) still use Java 1.3 and not Java 1.4?
Because Java 1.4 in OS X is implemented in Cocoa with basically no documentation about the interface, which makes it very very difficult to integrate it into Carbon-based browsers (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197813).
Java 1.4 in OS X was released over a year ago.
Does everybody know why all browsers on the Mac except for Safari (and probably Omniweb), in essence all Mozilla products plus Opera, iCab (and in principle Explorer) still use Java 1.3 and not Java 1.4?
Because Java 1.4 in OS X is implemented in Cocoa with basically no documentation about the interface, which makes it very very difficult to integrate it into Carbon-based browsers (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197813).
Java 1.4 in OS X was released over a year ago.
I'm Australian
I'm an Australian willing to acknowledge the success of any great enterprise... and yes, gladly American companies like MS, Apple, Dell, IBM, Intel, Motorola, GM, Ford, etc. doesn't make any difference to me.
question your own 'fairness'...
manu chao said:
I'm an Australian willing to acknowledge the success of any great enterprise... and yes, gladly American companies like MS, Apple, Dell, IBM, Intel, Motorola, GM, Ford, etc. doesn't make any difference to me.
question your own 'fairness'...
Man, I don't want to live in your world. I don't think you fully realize the implications of what you're saying. MS enjoys economies of scale that no other company can possibly attain and, therefore, is in a position to drive *any* competitor out of business. That's what a monopoly is. Everyone always laments the high prices Apple charges vs Wintel boxes, but how can Apple possibly compete purely on price? Dell buys 30 times as many system components (disks, video cards, etc.) as Apple. Who do think gets the best price *and* priority on availability, i.e. Dell get theirs first?ACED said:
Pure and simple: the masses buy based on price, period, end of subject. Quality has very little to do with it. WalMart: US$260 B. Nuf said.
howard said:
It's so that Microsoft's competitors can make software run as "well" as microsoft software does under windows. Microsoft takes advantage of their own secrets to make their apps "better" and to quash competition.
daveL said:
What a self-defeatist whinge...how much longer as Apple been around than Dell?...lets all feel sorry for companies who don't know how to compete. Dell, MS, Apple all started the same way, extremely small, even 'micro'.
Whilst MS's asset are massive, the assets of the world are vastly more massive. I'm sick of all the excuses put forth by the poor losers...why they can't compete.
Surely the combined assets of the losers could band together to give MS a real run for the money it asks people to pay for its particular products... but no, I'm sure there are many more reason losers can find why they couldn't do this...they're chicken!