> As Alan Greenspan stated, “businessmen have no way of
> knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal”
> by antitrust laws “until they hear the judge’s verdict.”
In this case, however, MS heard the verdict 4 years ago,
and the fine is for failing to comply with the court’s
orders. This is not a surprise fine. MS has literally
admitted that much.
When the Court of First Instance (or whatever the new
Euro collective calls it) handed down their decree, MS
need to then decide to comply or cut off Europe. They
did neither.
> Microsoft is not a monopoly.
They were dominant. They are trying to become a monopoly.
And they are using bribes and extortion to do so.
Their conduct in the OOXML standards effort has been
particularly reprehensible. I use MS products.
I would like to never buy any again.
_______
Do not confuse MS with Reardon Steel.
> “MS heard the verdict 4 years ago, and the fine is for failing to comply with the court’s orders.
As the article states “Proving that compliance isn’t the regulatocracy’s real goal, the commission levied the fine just days after Microsoft reportedly surrendered to the shakedown and promised it would do more cooperating and less competing with rivals”.
> “They were dominant. They are trying to become a monopoly”
All companies want to be dominant. Being dominant because people voluntarily choose your product is not, nor should it be illegal.
If they were using bribes and extortion, as you claim, then they should be prosecuted for bribes and extortion.
> Do not confuse MS with Reardon Steel.
I think you should read Atlas Shrugged again. Policies and decisions to ‘level the playing field’ is exactly what they did do to Reardon Steel. And promoting standards (e.g. OOXML) that benefit your own best interest is exactly what John Galt whould have championed.