Forget the Consumers (EU's war on American companies continues)

Tech Central Station ^ | 12/23/04 | Carlo Stagnaro

[KwasiOwusu]

Europeans will have to pay for what Americans may have for free.


"The ruling sends a message to the industry," adds Hugo Lueders, European Director of Public Policy for the Computing Technology Industry Association, an official third-party intervener in the Microsoft Court of First Instance Appeal, "that intense competition will be penalized, not rewarded. This 'level the playing field' approach to competition policy does not promote risk taking, nor encourage growth in the IT industry in the EC and around the globe. Additionally, today's ruling is inconsistent with rulings in U.S. courts that have also accorded substantial protection to intellectual property."

...............

First, intellectual property rights are at stake: if Microsoft has to share its codes with competitors, the very idea of an exclusive right to the fruits of one's intellectual labor is in trouble. If this is the case, the EU is taking a serious step towards less competitiveness, less innovation, and less research & development -- again, the EU actual policy is very far from the rhetoric of the Lisbon Strategy,......

Moreover, there seems to be no such thing as presumption of innocence in Europe, at least for large corporations. Any other citizen, under any legal system, would be regarded as innocent until a reasonable certainty has been reached on her or his possible guilt. .........

.. Monti's ruling doesn't come from an independent judiciary, but from a political appointed officer (EU Commissioners are appointed by national governments). Also, it is possible if not probable that the ruling will be reversed: Mr. Monti has a long record of reversed decisions. Out of 8 mergers and takeovers that were vetoed by Monti before the Microsoft case, one had been withdrawn, 4 filed an appeal of which 3 have already been overturned (4th being GE-Honeywell).

[KwasiOwusu]

So let me see if I get this right.
This Euro-poufter Monti, is the prosecutor, the judge and the jury all rolled into one and the same person, right?
And the EU call that due process?
Hey even the North Korean dictatorship have a better legal system than this charade. They sure don't have the prosecuter be the judge at the same time.
So the EU job destroying, economy ruining, bumbling bureaucratic machine of Inspector Clouseau's continues on its merry destructive way, leaving mayhem everywhere they go, while the EU economies continue to go nowhere very fast.

[doc30]

First, intellectual property rights are at stake: if Microsoft has to share its codes with competitors, the very idea of an exclusive right to the fruits of one's intellectual labor is in trouble.

That line says it all. Europe is a very uncompetitive place to do business. If you try to be competitive, you are considered a troublemaker. For example, in France, it is actually against the law for a store to have a sale without government involvement. It is believed that the lowering of prices during a sale will hurt sales at other stores, thereby creqating an unlevel playing field and putting others at an economic dissadvantage. The government mandates sales all occur on the same day, determined by the government and all stores offer the same discounts. That way, no one store will get more business than normal.

Even though Microsoft is not loved by many, it's aggressive business tactics have done the company well and are considered very shrewed. To many in the U.S., this is a compliment. In any socialist state, it is an insult.

[doc30]

This Euro-poufter Monti, is the prosecutor, the judge and the jury all rolled into one and the same person, right?

On a side note, that's how the International Criminal COurt would operate. Without the presumption of innocence and many of the evidence rules present in the U.S. in addition to the beaurocratic system you describes. Now see why the U.S. would never sign on?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

It is one thing when a company writes code that is the most powerful, fastest, and most secure.

However, if code is written with secret trap doors known only by that company so ONLY their other software can run efficiently on it, then that is correctly identified as anti-competitive behavior.

It would be similar if GE manufactured all of its appliances with odd-shaped plugs that only fit their odd-shaped outlets in order to force people to buy their outlets. If GE didn't have a monopoly on appliances, then people would buy other appliances that fit the regular outlets. But if GE did have a monopoly, then people would be forced to buy their outlets as well.

This is the case with Microsoft. They have a virtual monopoly on the operating system, and so they should not be allowed to tailor their code to make their business software run faster.

[Bigh4u2]

"They have a virtual monopoly on the operating system"

And rightly so. They wrote it!

It someone else can come up with a system that is 'competitive' than their system can be all 'inclusive' of their code as well.

This so-called 'unfair monopoly' is hogwash!

It's just people that whine because they aren't as smart as Bill Gates, and they want him to lower his standards, "just to make it fair".

[Sirloin]

Yes, that must be it.

[truth_seeker]

"However, if code is written with secret trap doors known only by that company so ONLY their other software can run efficiently on it, then that is correctly identified as anti-competitive behavior."

Microsoft wasn't given the monopoly. They fought for it in a competitive market. (IBM, Apple, and others had "better" software, many said.)

Why can't Microsoft exploit the strong position they won, in the free market?

I would suggest in your appliance, the use of an "adapter" to go from plug to wall socket.

Another idea is to pay Microsoft, for inside information, or to have your software bundled with Windows.

[KwasiOwusu]

"However, if code is written with secret trap doors known only by that company so ONLY their other software can run efficiently on it, then that is correctly identified as anti-competitive behavior."

Same old rabid anti-Micrsooft hate, right?

# 1, NEITHER in the US anti-trust trial, nor in the EU was this assertion of yours proved in a court of law.
Until then it remains,just what is, wild allegations by jealous, inefficient Microsoft rivals who can't compete, and nonsense from the open source crazies.

# 2,Microsoft Intellectual property is Microsoft intellectual property, which Microsft has spent Billions developing.
No entity on earth (not even the super evil EU) has the right to steal any American company's intellectual property by force.
This is like taking us back to the days of Atilla The Hun in Europe.

"It would be similar if GE manufactured all of its appliances with odd-shaped plugs that only fit their odd-shaped outlets in order to force people to buy their outlets. If GE didn't have a monopoly on appliances, then people would buy other appliances that fit the regular outlets. But if GE did have a monopoly, then people would be forced to buy their outlets as well."


That analogy of yours doesn't even come close to applying to Microsoft.
Stop repeating open source propaganda.


"This is the case with Microsoft. They have a virtual monopoly on the operating system, and so they should not be allowed to tailor their code to make their business software run faster"

# 1,we have plenty of operating systems out there today.
You open source fanatics keep ranting on about how open source is destroying Microsoft, while at the same time screaming that Microsoft has no competition.
You can't have it both ways.
Make up your minds already, will you?

# 2,anyone can switch operating systems any time they want,as hundreds of thousands already have switched to Linux and open source applications.

Your point is therefore not valid.

[Bigh4u2]

How many auto manufacturers share techology on their models?

Why is it the auto industry can 'monopolize' their cars (parts from one manufacturer are not interchangable with other manufacturers.

And the analogy with G.E. is off base, because G.E. does indeed manufacture their own 'proprietary' systems for housing electrical boxes.

Try putting a circuit breaker from another manufacturer (who isn't liscensed by G.E.) into their Breaker boxes!

Doesn't fit!

A 'radio' is not a 'radio', made by different companies, other than it's function.

[KwasiOwusu]

"On a side note, that's how the International Criminal Court would operate. Without the presumption of innocence and many of the evidence rules present in the U.S. in addition to the bureaucratic system you describes. Now see why the U.S. would never sign on?"

I do.
There is no way the US should ever sign on to this joke of the International Criminal Court, as it stands now.

[Bigh4u2]

"as it stands now."

Or EVER!

[Still Thinking]

Thought this might interest you.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Of course if you are against all anti-trust legislation, then nothing I say will be of interest to you.

However, there is a good economic case for anti-trust legislation. Governments in Europe and America have enacted anti-trust legislation and enfoce it through the courts.

Whether you believe it or not, duly confirmed judges by duly elected officials have decided that Microsoft has a monopoly on computer operating systems. This will certainly not hold forever, but it has been deemed true for now.

Because of this the government has the right to force Microsoft to limit or change its behavior so as not to unduly benefit from its monopoly position to the detriment of the free market system.

This was done with AT&T and with numerous other companies and it will continue to be done in the future.

My main argument with Microsoft is their misuse of the English language. Windows is not an operating system. It is a GUI on top of an operating system. Microsoft was further pushing for redefining the operating system as including office software such as Word. This was obviously a self-serving attempt to bundle all of their software as one single package and foist this all on the consumer with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum.

As far as car companies designing subsystems that only work with their cars (posted by another freeper): the advantages of having a car built up on a single assembly line optimized for that builder currently outweigh the benefits of people picking and choosing their own core car components. This is not true of computers and software: it is relatively easy for a computer seller like Dell to configure a computer with whatever software the end user wishes. If Dell is forced to purchse the Windows GUI along with the Microsoft operating system, then this makes it difficult for another GUI developer to create a competing GUI without also having to develop an OS. This means fewer choices for consumers which tends to result in higher costs and lower quality.

[ShadowAce]

This is just stupid. Basically, the EU is saying that if MS won't lose the game occasionally, then they'll just cheat to make it more favorable for them to win.

At least, that's how I read it.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Of course if you are against all anti-trust legislation, then nothing I say will be of interest to you"

Illegally seizing intellectual property of American companies after "trials" by kangaroo EU courts , where the prosecution is also the judge at the same time, has nothing to do with ant-trust legislation.

Its called theft. Plain and simple.

[KoRn]

If I were in Microsoft's place I would stop doing business in Europe until this is reversed.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If the EU court is such a travesty then Microsoft can stop doing business in Europe.

I have a feeling though that Bill is much smarter than that and will take this court ruling as a just another cost of doing business.

Every time he sells a copy of his software in China he knows that large quantities of pirated copies are made and sold with no revenue stream back to him. Yet still he sells there because in the end it makes good business sense to do so.

[JoJo Gunn]

Still pushing your open source hate, Little Precious?

[ApesForEvolution]

What is an EU?

[KwasiOwusu]

"Whether you believe it or not, duly confirmed judges by duly elected officials have decided that Microsoft has a monopoly on computer operating systems."

Motti is no judge.
He is a corrupt EU official who's pejorative has been to do as much harm to American companies as possible.
He was equally rabid when GE was taking over Honeywell. A takeover that had already been approved by American Justice Department officials.
Out of 8 mergers that Monti tried to sink, 3 have already been overturned, with the 4th still under appeal.
If any judge had such a high rate of failure, he'd be sacked.