OSNews

They can't know previously what X-Biggie Co plans. They can do investigation after the issue becomes known.

Yes, they could be faster, and they do efforts; but yet EU seems to have some years (decades?) to decide how to enfast itself

How so; everytime I hear customers complain, it isn't over the lack of choices, its over the fact that third parties flat out refuse to port their software to alternative platforms. If you're a customer and the only thing stopping you from moving is the lack of applications on the alternative platform, is it the 'big bad Microsoft monopoly' or the fact that third parties can't be bothered?

Its time for people to ignore the freak side show attraction that is Microsoft and take aim at the real scum bag in the equation - and that is the third party and its refusal to support alternative platforms and given the consumer choice on which operating system they wish to run. Same goes for hardware vendors who hide behind the boogie man smoke screen that is 'IP' to some how claim that they can't support nor opensource their hardware specifications because of some unnamed party which would object - interesting how these parties are never named.

Sure, Microsofts products are cruddy, their support is even worse, and yes, they have hard nose business tactics, but at the same time, if it weren't for the third party software and hardware support, no one would be running their operating system.

If you as the consumer want to make a difference, one would be better off demonising third party vendors who refuse to support alternative operating systems - restricting consumer choice and propping up a monopoly.

Edited 2007-07-27 13:19

"Why do these things always come too late?"

Anticomp-cases normally take that long because it is so difficult to determine a company's market and market power.

Anyway, anyone who did advertising with/for Intel in connection with their Intel-inside campaign knows that they are guilty as hell. In that light, I would agree that it took an awful long time

There's no democracy coming together with bureaucracy here. It's just the regular government going for extra funding.

If it's going to be like Microsoft's anti-trust "trial", it's going to be an meritless bureaucracy coercion issue (telling people how to run their own business). Most of EU's bureaucracy arguments will likely end up based upon fears and life-isn't-fair. Just like in Microsoft's case.

I really don't care what makes you think that your other points are even remotely valid, but this...

...is so far from reality that I just had to point it out.

Limiting choice for the consumer is what raises the price of products. Monopoly's raises the price of products.

Curbing the anti-trust tactics of large corporations is the only means a government has to protect itself and it's citizens from prices st and arranged by these companies.

Your comment is off topic. I disagree with you and would gladly debate your points, but this would also make me off topic.

Howevermuch you agree or disagree with the EU as an institution it was them (and not america) that finally found MS guilty IN COURT of monopoly practices.

btw before you moan anymore about any political institution, did you vote? If so who is your representitive? Use that voice (which is a privalage and NOT a right) by writing them a letter/email outlining your concerns.

Actually, the US did find Microsoft guilty of anti-trust. Then Microsoft appealed, complaining about the derison with which Judge Jackson had met their case (which was a complete shambles, and included Jim Allchin being caught perjuring himself). Before the appeal got underway, George Bush became president, and instituted a business friendly policy. Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld all the original judgments from the original trial; however because of the new business-friendly policy, they scrapped all the penalties, letting Microsoft off scot-free.

The different between the US and the EU, is that in most countries in the EU, and in the EU as a whole, there is a wide gap between the executive branch and the judiciary, which makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for politicians to affect the outcome of legal trials. For example, most countries in the EU don't give the president / prime-minister the right to pardon criminals.

"Howevermuch you agree or disagree with the EU as an institution it was them (and not america) that finally found MS guilty IN COURT of monopoly practices."

It's my understanding that a "COURT" has yet to hear the EU case. The EC isn't a "court", and affords no due process when coming to its decisions. Microsoft wasn't even allowed to cross-examine its accusers. Microsoft has appealed the EC's decrees to a real court, the hearings for which are to be held this fall.

Besides that, I find arguments that boil down to "a COURT decided such and such" to be without merit as it assumes that courts are infallible. Arguments should be based on the underlying facts, not merley a court's decision.

Bringing this back to the topic of Intel, does anyone know the real facts of this case? "While the exact Statement of Objection has not yet been made public, the EU charges that Intel used illegal methods to coerce OEM computer manufacturers to ship systems with Intel rather than AMD processors." is pretty vague. I hope the case consists of something more substantive than Intel offering discounts to OEMs.

(If it follows the MS case, the EC will declare Intel to be guilty of something, but won't say exactly what (ala Kafka). When Intel asks what they need to do to be in compliance with EU law (which the EC seems to treat as "ad-hoc law", a truly horrible philosophy of jurisprudence), the EC will say, "It's not up to us to tell you how to be in compliance. It's only up to us to declare you to be out of compliance." Then comes the inevitable 500 million dollar fine(s).)

Edited 2007-07-27 17:27

You're other statement of someone's voice being a "priviledge and NOT a right" is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read in years....and I've read a lot of stupid comments....mostly on this site.

The day your voice becomes a priviledge, is the day you should join the revolution.

But then again, the worst thing you can do is sit still and do nothing...

I don't know, but last I heard Microsoft and Intel aren't real buddy buddy. I think Intel doesn't really care much for Microsoft.

Funny how there was a case in the US as well. Funny how AMD is an American company. Funny how a major European company was recently fined €1 billion+ by the oh so anti-American EU.

In fact, the only funny thing about this is the fact that the trade and anti-monopoly laws in the US are completely insufficient, but somewhat functioning in Europe. That's kinda funny, don't you think?

It's also funny how american corporations are thumbing their noses at any, and all, EU charges. Until the EU gets teeth, it doesn't matter how strong the charges are, or how much moeny they'll impose in fines. US corporations laugh in the face of the EU, and that's blatantly obvious.

Don't condone a company that behaves unethically just because they happen to do things you like too. A monopoly situation benefits no one but the shareholders of said company. I like Intel's recent moves too, but if they're squashing competition by violating EU trade laws, then I don't have any issues with the European Commission punishing them.

poundsmack wrote:
-"I wouldn't care one bit in the least if intel did infact have a monopoly."

oh please what are you babbling about. if they did have a monopoly we'd still be using intel's p4 line. my current work machine is a Core 2 Duo E6600, my previous one was an AMD 4400+ which is now bumped down to being my leisure box. the reason Intel is currently showing 'more innovation' is because they HAD to, just like AMD did when they ate into Intels marketshares. this is the great advantage of competition for us consumers. likewise AMD now has to push their technology further with their Barcelona architecture in order to catch up with Intel. this competition propels technology further and makes it available to consumers at the best possible price. monopoly does not.

as for more willing to work with the 'OSS' community, that may be true, though I'm not aware of this. could you post some examples?