Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine

9

98 Guy

Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.

Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.

What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.

Their best years are clearly behind them.

--------------------------------------

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html

Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine

By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008

The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
record €899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
equivalent of $613 million).

The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
compatible software for Windows-based computers.

Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
of doing business.

"The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."

An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?

"The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
commission."

Other costs for behaving badly:

Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
issues. (April 2004)

Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)

Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
(July 2005)

Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
antitrust case. (October 2005)

Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)
 
N

none

> Their best years are clearly behind them.

AGREED! And whenever I think of Micro$oft now I pinch my nose.
Of course the sharp minded individual will know GREED is the evil which
drives MS management and their underhanded schemes!

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47C612FA.50BDD944@Guy.com...
> Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
> abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>
> Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>
> What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>
> Their best years are clearly behind them.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>
> Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>
> By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>
> The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
> objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
> record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
> previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
> equivalent of $613 million).
>
> The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
> for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
> compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>
> Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
> have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
> commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
> of doing business.
>
> "The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
> billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
> been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
> more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>
> An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
> Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
> acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
> closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>
> "The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
> especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
> hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
> to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
> never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
> commission."
>
> Other costs for behaving badly:
>
> Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
> antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
> issues. (April 2004)
>
> Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
> case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>
> Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
> (July 2005)
>
> Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
> antitrust case. (October 2005)
>
> Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
> in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)
 
R

RJK

IDIOTS !

Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would be
available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?

....oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
...."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
Apple/Mac hardware and software !

Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't think
that's going to happen very soon !

All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly work
wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout the
loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions against
them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!

There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence, achieve a
problematic Windows installation.
I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a million
unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine with it
!

regards, Richard


"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:OQ8wWGgeIHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Their best years are clearly behind them.

>
> AGREED! And whenever I think of Micro$oft now I pinch my nose.
> Of course the sharp minded individual will know GREED is the evil which
> drives MS management and their underhanded schemes!
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47C612FA.50BDD944@Guy.com...
>> Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
>> abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>>
>> Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>>
>> What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>>
>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>>
>> Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>>
>> By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>>
>> The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
>> objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
>> record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
>> previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
>> equivalent of $613 million).
>>
>> The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
>> for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
>> compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>>
>> Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
>> have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
>> commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
>> of doing business.
>>
>> "The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
>> billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
>> been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
>> more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>>
>> An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
>> Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
>> acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
>> closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>>
>> "The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
>> especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
>> hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
>> to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
>> never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
>> commission."
>>
>> Other costs for behaving badly:
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
>> antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
>> issues. (April 2004)
>>
>> Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
>> case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
>> (July 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
>> antitrust case. (October 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
>> in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)

>
>
 
P

Planer

RJK wrote:
> IDIOTS !
>
> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would be
> available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
> and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>


Ever stop to think what might be if Bill Gates hadn't stolen the GUI
from Apple?
Guess we'd be kow-towing to Apple instead of Microsoft. No matter, we'd
still
be getting it stuck to us, regardless.
 
R

RJK

Bill Gates and colleagues ? apparantly bought the "micro" from IBM who
failed to spot the huge potential in the home market i.e. IBM were only
interested in the bigger stuff like mainframes, I don't think Apple came
into it, ...mind you, it was a long time ago that I read up on this subject.

regards, Richard


"Planer" <noone@nowherenohow.com> wrote in message
news:yZExj.132$Fs5.108@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> RJK wrote:
>> IDIOTS !
>>
>> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would
>> be available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the
>> benefit and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>>

>
> Ever stop to think what might be if Bill Gates hadn't stolen the GUI from
> Apple?
> Guess we'd be kow-towing to Apple instead of Microsoft. No matter, we'd
> still
> be getting it stuck to us, regardless.
 
B

bobster

Right on, Richard. Couldn't agree more. The ABM (anything but MS) crowd is
VERY small, but very vocal. Thank goodness that Larry Ellison or Scott
McNealy aren't running Microsoft!!!

====================================================
"RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23rj4eUjeIHA.4464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
IDIOTS !

Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would be
available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?

....oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
...."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
Apple/Mac hardware and software !

Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't think
that's going to happen very soon !

All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly work
wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout the
loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions against
them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!

There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence, achieve a
problematic Windows installation.
I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a million
unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine with it
!

regards, Richard


"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:OQ8wWGgeIHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Their best years are clearly behind them.

>
> AGREED! And whenever I think of Micro$oft now I pinch my nose.
> Of course the sharp minded individual will know GREED is the evil which
> drives MS management and their underhanded schemes!
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47C612FA.50BDD944@Guy.com...
>> Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
>> abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>>
>> Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>>
>> What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>>
>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>>
>> Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>>
>> By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>>
>> The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
>> objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
>> record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
>> previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
>> equivalent of $613 million).
>>
>> The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
>> for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
>> compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>>
>> Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
>> have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
>> commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
>> of doing business.
>>
>> "The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
>> billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
>> been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
>> more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>>
>> An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
>> Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
>> acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
>> closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>>
>> "The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
>> especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
>> hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
>> to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
>> never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
>> commission."
>>
>> Other costs for behaving badly:
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
>> antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
>> issues. (April 2004)
>>
>> Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
>> case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
>> (July 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
>> antitrust case. (October 2005)
>>
>> Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
>> in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)

>
>
 
B

bobster

Re: GUI

Here are the real inventors. Both Jobs and Gates benefited from PARC's
pioneering work on GUIs
http://www.parc.com/

======================================================
"Planer" <noone@nowherenohow.com> wrote in message
news:yZExj.132$Fs5.108@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
RJK wrote:
> IDIOTS !
>
> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would

be
> available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
> and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>


Ever stop to think what might be if Bill Gates hadn't stolen the GUI
from Apple?
Guess we'd be kow-towing to Apple instead of Microsoft. No matter, we'd
still
be getting it stuck to us, regardless.
 
N

Nigel Stapley

RJK wrote:
> IDIOTS !
>
> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would be
> available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
> and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>
> ...oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
> ..."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
> Apple/Mac hardware and software !
>
> Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't think
> that's going to happen very soon !
>
> All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
> wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly work
> wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout the
> loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions against
> them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!
>
> There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence, achieve a
> problematic Windows installation.
> I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
> applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a million
> unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine with it
> !


This is all very well, Richard, but let's remember what this story was
about, shall we?

Microsoft were ordered to do something by a court. They did not do it.
That's why they were fined.

You can go on as much as you like about how Gates was the saviour of
home computer, yadda yadda (a moot point), but that doesn't excuse MS'
flouting of the law.

Put it like this: if, when I was about 11, I'd generously cut the grass
for an elderly neighbour for free, but then when I was 13 had chucked
rocks through her windows, does that mean I shouldn't be punished for that?

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.judgemental.plus.com

<reply-to will bounce>
 
R

RJK

mmm.... I don't quite follow your analogy but, regarding MS's court battle,
a while ago, to do with IE (web-browser) being "too" integrated into
Windows - which software writers of other web-browsers, (like Netscape which
never worked properly), didn't like, ...the whole fiasco seemed to me,
nothing more than a thinly disguised and greedy money making vendetta
against Microsoft.

Anyhoooooo, I'll try an analogy.

A group of business people get together and set up a company called
WonderCar, and they manufacture ALL parts of the car including the engine !
(i.e. they don't even buy in engines from, e.g. Ford).
The car sells very well - hundreds of thousands are shipped worldwide.
Later, another car manufacturer, (hitting upon the idea that a lot of
money could be made if WonderCar was forced to change their engine mounting
design so that its' engines would fit into the WonderCar), the predatory
"other" car manufacturer brings a law suit against WonderCar, demanding that
it changes the WonderCar engine mounting brackets, so that should a
WonderCar owner feel the need to fit a different engine, the "other car
manufacturer's engine" would fit !

Quite why the WonderCar owner would want to fit a different engine, when the
one supplied with it worked perfectly well, is perhaps irrelevant to various
aspects of the "money-making" procedure !

LOL !
(...too tired to correct grammar, punctuation, and other faults but, I'm
sure you get the gist of it :)

regards, Richard


"Nigel Stapley" <unet@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13seejr3pl9cl05@corp.supernews.com...
> RJK wrote:
>> IDIOTS !
>>
>> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would
>> be available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the
>> benefit and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>>
>> ...oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
>> ..."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
>> Apple/Mac hardware and software !
>>
>> Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't
>> think that's going to happen very soon !
>>
>> All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
>> wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly work
>> wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout
>> the loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions
>> against them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!
>>
>> There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence, achieve
>> a problematic Windows installation.
>> I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
>> applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a million
>> unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine with
>> it !

>
> This is all very well, Richard, but let's remember what this story was
> about, shall we?
>
> Microsoft were ordered to do something by a court. They did not do it.
> That's why they were fined.
>
> You can go on as much as you like about how Gates was the saviour of home
> computer, yadda yadda (a moot point), but that doesn't excuse MS' flouting
> of the law.
>
> Put it like this: if, when I was about 11, I'd generously cut the grass
> for an elderly neighbour for free, but then when I was 13 had chucked
> rocks through her windows, does that mean I shouldn't be punished for
> that?
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Nigel Stapley
>
> www.judgemental.plus.com
>
> <reply-to will bounce>
 
U

Unknown

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:09:32 -0800, "bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net>
wrote:

>,
>,Right on, Richard. Couldn't agree more. The ABM (anything but MS) crowd is
>,VERY small, but very vocal. Thank goodness that Larry Ellison or Scott
>,McNealy aren't running Microsoft!!!


If I were running Microsoft (unfortunately I'm not doing that) I would
tell the EU to start buying Apples because I wouldn't sell any MS
products in the EU until they pulled the plug on these fines. It is my
software and I will sell it where I please and if they don't like the
way it is sold get something else.

I think MS would have the winning hand.


>,
>,====================================================
>,"RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>,news:%23rj4eUjeIHA.4464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>,IDIOTS !
>,
>,Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would be
>,available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the benefit
>,and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>,
>,...oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
>,..."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
>,Apple/Mac hardware and software !
>,
>,Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't think
>,that's going to happen very soon !
>,
>,All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
>,wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly work
>,wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout the
>,loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions against
>,them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!
>,
>,There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence, achieve a
>,problematic Windows installation.
>,I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
>,applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a million
>,unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine with it
>,!
>,
>,regards, Richard
>,
>,
>,"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
>,news:OQ8wWGgeIHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>,>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
>,>
>,> AGREED! And whenever I think of Micro$oft now I pinch my nose.
>,> Of course the sharp minded individual will know GREED is the evil which
>,> drives MS management and their underhanded schemes!
>,>
>,> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47C612FA.50BDD944@Guy.com...
>,>> Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
>,>> abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>,>>
>,>> Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>,>>
>,>> What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>,>>
>,>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
>,>>
>,>> --------------------------------------
>,>>
>,>> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>,>>
>,>> By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>,>>
>,>> The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
>,>> objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
>,>> record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
>,>> previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
>,>> equivalent of $613 million).
>,>>
>,>> The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
>,>> for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
>,>> compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>,>>
>,>> Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
>,>> have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
>,>> commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
>,>> of doing business.
>,>>
>,>> "The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
>,>> billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
>,>> been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
>,>> more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>,>>
>,>> An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
>,>> Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
>,>> acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
>,>> closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>,>>
>,>> "The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
>,>> especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
>,>> hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
>,>> to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
>,>> never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
>,>> commission."
>,>>
>,>> Other costs for behaving badly:
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
>,>> antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
>,>> issues. (April 2004)
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
>,>> case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
>,>> (July 2005)
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
>,>> antitrust case. (October 2005)
>,>>
>,>> Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
>,>> in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)
>,>
>,>
>,
 
M

MEB

"Unknown" <dwilkins@unitelc.com> wrote in message
news:tdhes3tlo5uu6uskijmppnfshcml2p86ai@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:09:32 -0800, "bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net>
| wrote:
|
| >,
| >,Right on, Richard. Couldn't agree more. The ABM (anything but MS)
crowd is
| >,VERY small, but very vocal. Thank goodness that Larry Ellison or
Scott
| >,McNealy aren't running Microsoft!!!
|
| If I were running Microsoft (unfortunately I'm not doing that) I would
| tell the EU to start buying Apples because I wouldn't sell any MS
| products in the EU until they pulled the plug on these fines. It is my
| software and I will sell it where I please and if they don't like the
| way it is sold get something else.
|
| I think MS would have the winning hand.
|

No, not a smart idea, the world market is moving towards the cheap laptop
PC, perhaps you may have noticed them metioned on the news.. these couple
hundred dollar computers being mass produced for the *poorer* nations ...
with buiilt-in wireless, battery/electric/wind-up generator, shock
protection, and other nifty stuff ...

Those are generally loaded with a Linux variant, or one can use a cut down
Microsoft OS [a battle is being waged for what OS is used]... The *full
blown computer* market is small beans now days with cell phones and other
devices INCLUDING gaming systems [and cars] where growth is occurring
[referring more to the US and european market, other former third world
nations are still expanding computer usage as they become more wealthy and
connect to the Internet]..

Regardless of this ONE ruling, Microsoft has won dozens of others across
the world recently.... and has garnered some significant Patents AND has won
cases allowing it to violate other's US Patents overseas...... this IS, FYI,
what is being referred to and expanded worldwide as *the rule of law* and
corporatism.
A couple billion dollars is a drop in the bucket... after several more
years of Appeals it won't even be remembered [nor likely paid at that
amount]..
Strikingly, Microsoft is suggesting support for open source for its Server
2008...

MEANWHILE, the state [US] and other nation's prosecutors have been
diligently *borrowing* the hundreds of billions worth of anti-terrorist
software and hardware to track illegal use and piracy [with mainly out of
court settlements or plea agreements] {and part of WHY there is a push for
immunity for the Phone companies and ISPs, it isn't {just} for terrorism
[think DRM]}... best keep up with the world's news...

As for the IBM statement: forget about OS2, Solaris, BeOS, and a couple
others, or was that before your time?

Sources: check the news services and wires..

BTW: if you're using VMware take note that new venerabilities have been
found and are being used.... AND there is a new cell hack which is
apparently difficult or impossible to remove.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________


|
| >,
| >,====================================================
| >,"RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >,news:%23rj4eUjeIHA.4464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| >,IDIOTS !
| >,
| >,Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles
would be
| >,available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the
benefit
| >,and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
| >,
| >,...oh, ...did I hear someone say "Linux" ....<ROFL>
| >,..."MAC" ...very few home users can afford, the ludicrous prices for
| >,Apple/Mac hardware and software !
| >,
| >,Of course, it would be nice for MS platforms to be free but, I don't
think
| >,that's going to happen very soon !
| >,
| >,All of those, sat there at home, using system boxes built from the
| >,wonderfully vast range of IBM PC compatible components, that mostly
work
| >,wonderfully well with MS Windows platforms in them, and those who shout
the
| >,loudest in condemnation of Microsoft whilst applauding court actions
against
| >,them, are simply HYPOCRITS !!!
| >,
| >,There's always a few that through inexperience, or incompetence,
achieve a
| >,problematic Windows installation.
| >,I suspect that for every single loud mouth shouting abuse at MS and
| >,applauding recent court action successes against MS, there are a
million
| >,unheard people, that quite like MS Windows, and get along just fine
with it
| >,!
| >,
| >,regards, Richard
| >,
| >,
| >,"none" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
| >,news:OQ8wWGgeIHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| >,>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
| >,>
| >,> AGREED! And whenever I think of Micro$oft now I pinch my nose.
| >,> Of course the sharp minded individual will know GREED is the evil
which
| >,> drives MS management and their underhanded schemes!
| >,>
| >,> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:47C612FA.50BDD944@Guy.com...
| >,>> Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire
to
| >,>> abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
| >,>>
| >,>> Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
| >,>>
| >,>> What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
| >,>>
| >,>> Their best years are clearly behind them.
| >,>>
| >,>> --------------------------------------
| >,>>
| >,>> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
| >,>>
| >,>> By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
| >,>>
| >,>> The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
| >,>> objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
| >,>> record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with
its
| >,>> previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
| >,>> equivalent of $613 million).
| >,>>
| >,>> The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged
third-parties
| >,>> for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
| >,>> compatible software for Windows-based computers.
| >,>>
| >,>> Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
| >,>> have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
| >,>> commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the
cost
| >,>> of doing business.
| >,>>
| >,>> "The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
| >,>> billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could
have
| >,>> been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
| >,>> more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
| >,>>
| >,>> An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
| >,>> Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear
its
| >,>> acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
| >,>> closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo
deal?
| >,>>
| >,>> "The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
| >,>> especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But
it's
| >,>> hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's
fair
| >,>> to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
| >,>> never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
| >,>> commission."
| >,>>
| >,>> Other costs for behaving badly:
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
| >,>> antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
| >,>> issues. (April 2004)
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
| >,>> case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust
case.
| >,>> (July 2005)
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
| >,>> antitrust case. (October 2005)
| >,>>
| >,>> Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and
businesses
| >,>> in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)
| >,>
| >,>
| >,
|
 
T

Tim Slattery

"RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Bill Gates and colleagues ? apparantly bought the "micro" from IBM who
>failed to spot the huge potential in the home market


Not quite. IBM needed an OS for their new, 16-bit microcomputer.
You're right that they didn't really think that this machine would
really go anywhere. That's why they struck the deal they did with
Microsoft: IBM would sell a version of the OS with their machines
which they would call PC-DOS, and Microsoft would be free to sell the
OS under their own name: MS-DOS.

Then the market exploded, and non-IBM manufacturers started making
compatible machines, for which they bought MS-DOS. MS-DOS turned out
to be one of the greatest cash cows ever, and set Microsoft on its
way.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
R

RJK

Thanks for reminding me, ...I now remember buying an Amstrad 1512 ...(then
later a 1640 with VGA )!!!, several centuries ago it seems, in 198?, (with
2x51/4" floppy drives and no hard disk, ...later "heaven" was a 10mb hard
disk on an ISA card, ...Seagate I think, and for the same amount of money I
could have bought a small island in the South Pacific ....well almost :),
and the Amstrad 1512 {8086/8mhz cpu - 640mb ram - I bought the memory
upgrade!}, & dreadful CGA|CRT monitor}, came with two OS's PC-DOS and MSDOS
....v2.1 I think. ....then one tried across the years to keep up, e.g. an
80826 or two, several 80386's | a couple of 80486's ...all those happy
times spent with "Quarterdeck's QEMM" upper memory manager trying to get
everything stuffed, in an optimal fashion, into that little upper memory
space !!! ...and all that tweaking himem.sys|extended memory manager and
emm386.exe|expanded memory manager etc. ..and getting things in the right
order in config.sys and autoexec.bat etc. ...happy days ???
....and eveeeeeeeeentually, Windows, which had mostly been pretty just to
look at now and again but, one stuck with DOS based prog's
{Wordstar/WordPerfect/SuperCalc etc.), for "real" work, for a long time,
.....eventually Windows became usable for serious application programs in
2007 I think !! ...just kidding :)

regards, Richard


"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:d82gs3lbqn19105lf5k576l70e36su2scj@4ax.com...
> "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Gates and colleagues ? apparantly bought the "micro" from IBM who
>>failed to spot the huge potential in the home market

>
> Not quite. IBM needed an OS for their new, 16-bit microcomputer.
> You're right that they didn't really think that this machine would
> really go anywhere. That's why they struck the deal they did with
> Microsoft: IBM would sell a version of the OS with their machines
> which they would call PC-DOS, and Microsoft would be free to sell the
> OS under their own name: MS-DOS.
>
> Then the market exploded, and non-IBM manufacturers started making
> compatible machines, for which they bought MS-DOS. MS-DOS turned out
> to be one of the greatest cash cows ever, and set Microsoft on its
> way.
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(Shell/User)
> Slattery_T@bls.gov
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
J

Jeff Richards

The 1640 came with EGA, not VGA. VGA didn't appear until 2 years after the
1640 was released. The 1512 was provided with MS-DOS and DOS Plus (from
Digital Research - later to become DR-DOS). Only IBM machines were sold
with PC-DOS.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23o7o8MxeIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for reminding me, ...I now remember buying an Amstrad 1512 ...(then
> later a 1640 with VGA )!!!, several centuries ago it seems, in 198?, (with
> 2x51/4" floppy drives and no hard disk, ...later "heaven" was a 10mb hard
> disk on an ISA card, ...Seagate I think, and for the same amount of money
> I could have bought a small island in the South Pacific ....well almost
> :), and the Amstrad 1512 {8086/8mhz cpu - 640mb ram - I bought the memory
> upgrade!}, & dreadful CGA|CRT monitor}, came with two OS's PC-DOS and
> MSDOS ...v2.1 I think. ....
 
J

John John

Tim Slattery wrote:

> "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Gates and colleagues ? apparantly bought the "micro" from IBM who
>>failed to spot the huge potential in the home market

>
>
> Not quite. IBM needed an OS for their new, 16-bit microcomputer.
> You're right that they didn't really think that this machine would
> really go anywhere. That's why they struck the deal they did with
> Microsoft: IBM would sell a version of the OS with their machines
> which they would call PC-DOS, and Microsoft would be free to sell the
> OS under their own name: MS-DOS.
>
> Then the market exploded, and non-IBM manufacturers started making
> compatible machines, for which they bought MS-DOS. MS-DOS turned out
> to be one of the greatest cash cows ever, and set Microsoft on its
> way.
>
 
J

John John

Tim Slattery wrote:

> "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Gates and colleagues ? apparantly bought the "micro" from IBM who
>>failed to spot the huge potential in the home market

>
>
> Not quite. IBM needed an OS for their new, 16-bit microcomputer.
> You're right that they didn't really think that this machine would
> really go anywhere. That's why they struck the deal they did with
> Microsoft: IBM would sell a version of the OS with their machines
> which they would call PC-DOS, and Microsoft would be free to sell the
> OS under their own name: MS-DOS.


And Bill Gates was clever enough not to sell the OS to IBM but to
license it instead and collect a fee for every copy sold. Bill Gates
was smart enough to buy the OS or significant parts of it outright from
someone else and resell it under the licensing model!

John
 
R

RJK

I stand corrected ! ...it was a long time ago :)

regards, Richard


"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:eZl3a8yeIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The 1640 came with EGA, not VGA. VGA didn't appear until 2 years after
> the 1640 was released. The 1512 was provided with MS-DOS and DOS Plus
> (from Digital Research - later to become DR-DOS). Only IBM machines were
> sold with PC-DOS.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23o7o8MxeIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for reminding me, ...I now remember buying an Amstrad 1512
>> ...(then later a 1640 with VGA )!!!, several centuries ago it seems, in
>> 198?, (with 2x51/4" floppy drives and no hard disk, ...later "heaven" was
>> a 10mb hard disk on an ISA card, ...Seagate I think, and for the same
>> amount of money I could have bought a small island in the South Pacific
>> ....well almost :), and the Amstrad 1512 {8086/8mhz cpu - 640mb ram - I
>> bought the memory upgrade!}, & dreadful CGA|CRT monitor}, came with two
>> OS's PC-DOS and MSDOS ...v2.1 I think. ....

>
>
 
F

Franc Zabkar

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:48:42 -0500, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
>abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>
>Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>
>What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>
>Their best years are clearly behind them.
>
>--------------------------------------
>
>http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>
>Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>
>By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>
>The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
>objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
>record €899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
>previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
>equivalent of $613 million).
>
>The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
>for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
>compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>
>Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
>have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
>commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
>of doing business.
>
>"The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
>billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
>been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
>more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>
>An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
>Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
>acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
>closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>
>"The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
>especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
>hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
>to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
>never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
>commission."
>
>Other costs for behaving badly:
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
>antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
>issues. (April 2004)
>
>Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
>case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
>(July 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
>antitrust case. (October 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
>in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)


If the EU governments really want to punish Microsoft, then why don't
they just switch to Linux and Open Office? Why does any bureaucrat
need Windows Vista and MS Office for writing letters or producing the
occasional spreadsheet or presentation? And if the EU are serious
about saving the planet, then they should avoid AMD and Intel and
start using Via's processors.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
B

bobster

Lawyer's truism:

"Always go for the deep pockets".

They don't come much deeper than Microsoft's.

Corollary:

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, "because that's where
the money is"

=====================================================================

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4mejs3pjca14ja37bib5ru9sljrvc98spu@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:48:42 -0500, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>Here is what Micro$oft has been up to lately regarding their desire to
>abide by the rule of law and the respect of the courts.
>
>Now explain to me again why we should abide by Macroshaft's EULA's.
>
>What a joke - no, what a fraud of a company.
>
>Their best years are clearly behind them.
>
>--------------------------------------
>
>http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/02/microsoft-slapp.html
>
>Microsoft Slapped by EU With $1.35B Fine
>
>By Betsy Schiffman February 27, 2008
>
>The European Commission stands to make a tidy profit off Microsoft's
>objectionable business practices. The commission fined Microsoft a
>record ?899 million, or $1.35 billion, for failing to comply with its
>previous 2004 antitrust ruling (in which the company was fined the
>equivalent of $613 million).
>
>The commission found that Microsoft unreasonably charged third-parties
>for access to documentation that would allow them to develop
>compatible software for Windows-based computers.
>
>Essentially, Microsoft now has to pay more than double what it would
>have four years ago for its unwillingness to comply with the
>commission's previous order. Still, for Microsoft it's just the cost
>of doing business.
>
>"The company previously said [the fine] could be as high as $1.5
>billion, so from that standpoint, it's better than what it could have
>been," says Sid Parakh, an analyst with McAdams Wright Ragen. "The
>more important thing going forward are the two remaining cases."
>
>An equally important question is how this ruling bodes for the
>Microsoft-Yahoo deal. If it's taken Google nearly a year to clear its
>acquisition of DoubleClick with European regulators -- and it hasn't
>closed yet -- will Microsoft have better luck clearing the Yahoo deal?
>
>"The acquisition of Yahoo would certainly be closely looked at --
>especially at how it will affect the consumer," Parakh says. "But it's
>hard to say how the commission will respond. At this point, it's fair
>to say that Google is the big market share leader in search. But you
>never know what aspect of the deal will be scrutinized by the
>commission."
>
>Other costs for behaving badly:
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay Sun Microsystems $700 million to settle an
>antitrust case, and an additional $900 million to resolve patent
>issues. (April 2004)
>
>Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $521 million in a patent infringement
>case related to Internet Explorer. (March 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay IBM $775 million to settle an antitrust case.
>(July 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay RealNetworks $761 million to settle an
>antitrust case. (October 2005)
>
>Microsoft agrees to pay $179 million to Iowa consumers and businesses
>in a class-action antitrust case. (February 2007)


If the EU governments really want to punish Microsoft, then why don't
they just switch to Linux and Open Office? Why does any bureaucrat
need Windows Vista and MS Office for writing letters or producing the
occasional spreadsheet or presentation? And if the EU are serious
about saving the planet, then they should avoid AMD and Intel and
start using Via's processors.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
G

Gary S. Terhune

LOL! Haven't heard such loud whining in quite a while.

Believe me, if MS had "stolen" the GUI from Apple, Apple would be a lot
richer than it is now... And the lack of putting together IBM's PCDOS with
Apple's GUI would mean we'd have a Choice between really difficult to use
(IBM) or really expensive to use (Apple.) IBM never believed in the PC and
never bothered to try to make it work. Instead they gave PCDOS to Microsoft
for FREE.

Apple's lawsuit was ridiculous (as shown by the results). Basically, they
wanted intellectual rights to ANYTHING that was called or even resembled a
GUI. The judge was right to limit Apple's winnings to the trademark on that
stupid trash can.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Planer" <noone@nowherenohow.com> wrote in message
news:yZExj.132$Fs5.108@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> RJK wrote:
>> IDIOTS !
>>
>> Ever stop to think what crap GUI's, if any, for IBM PC compatibles would
>> be available, were it not for MS backing up their GUI | OS's with the
>> benefit and power of Microsoft being a multi-billion / global company ?
>>

>
> Ever stop to think what might be if Bill Gates hadn't stolen the GUI from
> Apple?
> Guess we'd be kow-towing to Apple instead of Microsoft. No matter, we'd
> still
> be getting it stuck to us, regardless.
 
Back
Top Bottom