«

begin Mitch , wrote in message
21220052300203874%:
> In article <>, FUD
> <> wrote:
>
>> Let me spell it out for you. EU don't declare what should or should
>> not be in the documentation, then they are able to declare anything
>> inadequate. Get it now?
>
> But why do you believe the EU didn't declare what Microsoft needed to
> provide?

It has nothing to do with what I believe, but facts.

If the EU want additional revenue, it is going to have to work harder for
it, and not for the long haul rely on its current posture of hoping they can
apply such illegal impositions on corporations. They have been unreasonable,
and vague if not ambiguous about their demands, and the reason for that is
they know damn well that to be too specific will get them into hot water,
namely, they will begin to infringe on the rights of the corporation's
business activity, generally, and possibly its intellectual property, and
those two fact alone don't even scratch the surface of that issue.

NGO's or similar, Europe-wide, in fact world-wide, are pivotally responsible
for having allowed the likes of Microsoft free rein to succeed until it
suited them otherwise, and the pressure to bare for change in the position
of the goal-posts was only bought about by whining non-competitive,
ill-managed companies unable to apply similar creativity in marketing or
produce products comparable or better that the consumer would readily use.
Instead, they lobby officials [stomp their feet] in an effort to compensate
for their own inadequacies and inability to compete. If their products are
good enough or better, let them flaunt it by encouraging more usage of said
products. If their products are better, users will naturally flock... that's
human nature, over which Microsoft has limited control, but the creativity
to overcome such advances.

When it was seen that what Microsoft produced was the best thing since
sliced bread, we were ALL hooked on to it, and supported it. For Goverments
world-wide at the time it meant increased employment, and huge tax revenue.
That's not good enough anymore, because everyone is far wealthier. Now it
doesn't suit the turn-coats, it's, 'let's kill them all!'. I don't see the
panty-wastes [Corporate or Consumers] applying themselves anywhere near as
much with effort to objections they have of government itself, do you?
Where's the objection to invisible taxes that have been applied by at least
the top ten countries in the world to their businesses and people, in the
same way objection is applied to Microsoft for doing so well in what it
does?

At this point you'll probably refer me to their bank balance - well don't
bother, just stick to the main thrust of the issues about the EU and their
erroneous reasons for not detailing exactly what they want, aside from
Microsoft's money, that is.

Sales of products and consumers decision to buy or not to buy are hinged
more often than not price and functionality followed closely by perceive
reputation of the product's producer. That's, reputation, and even bad
publicity can cause a company to have the consumer perceive both good and
bad reputation in the fallout. Consumers who remain loyal, regardless of
such positive or negative effects do so because they are assured
sustainability. Sustainability doesn't feature with linux.

I'm bored now, so I'll let you take your turn. I need to have a nap now
anyway.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

begin Mitch , wrote in message
21220052257575312%:
> In article <> , FUD
> <> wrote:
>
>> begin Roy Culley , wrote in message
>> viq73-:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
>>>
>>> The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to 2m
>>> euros ($2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to its
>>> operating systems.
>>
>> Why should it have to?
> Many companies have protections in place to support companies that
> develop for the Windows platform; it's almost the only way to make
> sure Microsoft creates opportunities for other businesses.
> If that doesn's sound fair, think of some other way that people who
> don't make the operating system can keep making and offering products.

If they want to tie into Microsoft and its products, they /will/ /have/ to
pay the going rate.

>>> Brussels said the software giant had failed to supply adequate
>>> information about its server programmes.
>>
>> How convenient? Don't state exactly what should be documented, then
>> find that whatever is supplied as inadequate. [Everybody want to see
>> your demise, please provide a blank cheque]
> You understand that this note wasn't the actual complaint? I'm sure
> the complaint and orders were quite specific -- as the charges would
> be.

They are indeed extremely complex things. But any objections were slow in
coming. And now they are here, 'let's move the goal posts'.

>>> Microsoft has five weeks to provide improved documentation before
>>> the daily penalties are imposed.
>>>
>>> The EU said it was "left with no alternative" after giving
>>> Microsoft every chance to comply with its ruling.
>>
>> Such moves, coercions, and exhaustion by the EU, will be found
>> illegal acts of revenue raising and attempts of dispossessing an
>> owner of it right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of it property.
>> The EU will be discredited as thieves in pursuit of a cabal.
>
> Bizarre -- most people see it exactly the opposite way -- where
> Microsoft is the powerful thief acting against everyone else's
> interests.
> "Peacful and quiet enjoyment of its property" sounds like you read
> that out of a trespassing clause. Microsoft is NOT attempting to
> engage in peaceful and quiet enjoyment of any property. They are
> trying to sell it as the controlling package for a huge segment of
> the computer industry, and since that industry involves hundreds of
> players, there are many many products and interests involved.

So? If I want to wash cars on the forecourt of a supermarket I must pay to
use that forecourt. Where's the problem? They bundle AOL and other ISP
software for which a premium is due, and paid.

You want the architecture to an OS that allows for the creation of a
product, you must pay.

How have other companies that produce software products managed up until now
then? I don't see the owners of Sage or Quicken saying they can't compete
because Money is bundled with Microsoft products. Think carefully before you
insert you squeal here> [...]

To have it then bundled, you must pay. That's all just business sense. But
that is not what the freeloaders have in mind. They want it all, but free,
if you damn well please.

>> Nothing more than machination of the envious.
>
> That's just stupid. If a guy robs a bank, do you assume police go
> after him because they are just envious he got to the money first?
> Microsoft is nothing to be envious of. But from many perspectives,
> Microsoft is something to fight in order to help others.

You assume a theft has taken place. I don't recall such a theft ever having
been proven in a court of law, have you? I don't in fact ever recall theft
as a charge ever being levelled at Microsoft, do you? Think carefully again
before you squeal, 'anti-trust'.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:14:00 +0900, FUD wrote:

> begin Rick , wrote in message
> :
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:32:41 -1100, FUD wrote:
>>
>>> begin Roy Culley , wrote in message
>>> viq73-:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
>>>>
>>>> The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to 2m
>>>> euros ($2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to its
>>>> operating systems.
>>>
>>> Why should it have to?
>>
>> Because the court said so.
>>
>>
>>>> Brussels said the software giant had failed to supply adequate
>>>> information about its server programmes.
>>>
>>> How convenient? Don't state exactly what should be documented, then
>>> find that whatever is supplied as inadequate. [Everybody want to see
>>> your demise, please provide a blank cheque]
>>
>> Your premise is flawed.
>
> Not at all, you just chose to read it in the wrong way. That is more than
> likely why you are blindsided.
>
> Let me spell it out for you. EU don't declare what should or should not be
> in the documentation, then they are able to declare anything inadequate.
> Get it now?

Is it your position that the Eu should tell MS to provide annotated
source code?

>
>
>>>> Microsoft has five weeks to provide improved documentation before
>>>> the daily penalties are imposed.
>>>>
>>>> The EU said it was "left with no alternative" after giving
>>>> Microsoft every chance to comply with its ruling.
>>>
>>> Such moves, coercions, and exhaustion by the EU, will be found illegal
>>> acts of revenue raising and attempts of dispossessing an owner of it
>>> right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of it property. The EU will be
>>> discredited as thieves in pursuit of a cabal.
>>
>> In your pro-micro$oft opinion.
>
> I'm neutrally objective, aren't you?

I was. Once.

> That is what I see. What do you want to see?

I want to see micro$oft comply with the laws of the jurisdictions within
which they do business.

>
>>> Nothing more than machination of the envious.

--
Rick

begin Rick , wrote in message
:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:14:00 +0900, FUD wrote:
>
>> begin Rick , wrote in message
>> :
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:32:41 -1100, FUD wrote:
>>>
>>>> begin Roy Culley , wrote in message
>>>> viq73-:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to
>>>>> 2m euros ($2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to its
>>>>> operating systems.
>>>>
>>>> Why should it have to?
>>>
>>> Because the court said so.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Brussels said the software giant had failed to supply adequate
>>>>> information about its server programmes.
>>>>
>>>> How convenient? Don't state exactly what should be documented, then
>>>> find that whatever is supplied as inadequate. [Everybody want to
>>>> see your demise, please provide a blank cheque]
>>>
>>> Your premise is flawed.
>>
>> Not at all, you just chose to read it in the wrong way. That is more
>> than likely why you are blindsided.
>>
>> Let me spell it out for you. EU don't declare what should or should
>> not be in the documentation, then they are able to declare anything
>> inadequate. Get it now?
>
> Is it your position that the Eu should tell MS to provide annotated
> source code?

Where was source code mentioned other than in the sentence to which I am now
responding? If you continue to fail to diligent, you will pay the
consequences. You have been warned.

>>>>> Microsoft has five weeks to provide improved documentation
>>>>> before the daily penalties are imposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EU said it was "left with no alternative" after giving
>>>>> Microsoft every chance to comply with its ruling.
>>>>
>>>> Such moves, coercions, and exhaustion by the EU, will be found
>>>> illegal acts of revenue raising and attempts of dispossessing an
>>>> owner of it right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of it property.
>>>> The EU will be discredited as thieves in pursuit of a cabal.
>>>
>>> In your pro-micro$oft opinion.
>>
>> I'm neutrally objective, aren't you?
>
> I was. Once.

Lost the ability to decide for yourself, did you?

>> That is what I see. What do you want to see?
>
> I want to see micro$oft comply with the laws of the jurisdictions
> within which they do business.

I could challenge you to define that which they evidently have not, but I
won't because you won't be able to. Microsoft will be fined. There is no
escaping it, that is, under the terms of the ambiguity that surrounds the
mandate. The only way they will avert being penalised is if the EU
back-pedals or decides to apply a different interpretation to that they
thought they meant. It's that easy. Failing that, if I were Microsoft, I
would simply threaten to up roots and pull out. But that's why I'm not
running the show

That would certainly capture the imagination of the EU then. But then, there
are others in commerce, generally, that don't agree with the EU's handling
of the situation, and Microsoft wouldn't want them to become affected as a
result of the greedy EU.

Incidentally, those "laws of the jurisdictions" were avoid for a very long
time. One should at least consider why there was such a delay in constraints
being imposed before they were. I say, it was 'deliberate conspiracy
entrap'. The imposition could have been dealt with, long before now, and was
veered away from. The reason? Because then, there wasn't anything else to
speak of by way of general user software, and the EU at the time, didn't
want to be seen stifling what was then providing a satisfactory service by
way of its products to them as well as the consumer, and as each month
advanced, so Microsoft was allowed to do the same, whilst the competition if
you can call it that, sat there with their thumbs up their bums and their
brains in neutral. That's why, or at least part of the reason.

>>>> Nothing more than machination of the envious.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:53:10 +0900 (JAYAT), FUD
<> spewed the following drivel:

<snip, snip, snipity-snip>

<such positive or negative effects do so because they are assured
<sustainability. Sustainability doesn't feature with linux.
<
<I'm bored now,

No ****? Me too.

--

-nos1eep

-Scaling up the heights of folly.
-non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate

nos1eep , wrote in message
:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:53:10 +0900 (JAYAT), FUD
> <> spewed the following drivel:
>
> <snip, snip, snipity-snip>
>
> <such positive or negative effects do so because they are assured
> <sustainability. Sustainability doesn't feature with linux.
> <
> <I'm bored now,
>
> No ****? Me too.

LMFAO

--
Up the Union Jack

In article <>, FUD
<> wrote:

> > But why do you believe the EU didn't declare what Microsoft needed to
> > provide?
>
> It has nothing to do with what I believe, but facts.
And you gave me no facts. Let me ask again -- why do you SAY that the
EU isn't being specific about what is required?

> If the EU want additional revenue, it is going to have to work harder for
> it, and not for the long haul rely on its current posture of hoping they can
> apply such illegal impositions on corporations. They have been unreasonable,
> and vague if not ambiguous about their demands, and the reason for that is
> they know damn well that to be too specific will get them into hot water,
> namely, they will begin to infringe on the rights of the corporation's
> business activity, generally, and possibly its intellectual property, and
> those two fact alone don't even scratch the surface of that issue.

> NGO's or similar, Europe-wide, in fact world-wide, are pivotally responsible
> for having allowed the likes of Microsoft free rein to succeed until it
> suited them otherwise, and the pressure to bare for change in the position
> of the goal-posts was only bought about by whining non-competitive,
> ill-managed companies unable to apply similar creativity in marketing or
> produce products comparable or better that the consumer would readily use.
> Instead, they lobby officials [stomp their feet] in an effort to compensate
> for their own inadequacies and inability to compete. If their products are
> good enough or better, let them flaunt it by encouraging more usage of said
> products. If their products are better, users will naturally flock... that's
> human nature, over which Microsoft has limited control, but the creativity
> to overcome such advances.

Those two paragraphs just blew me away. You are all over the place,
ascribing Microsoft with powers over human nature and giving
intellectual property rights in itself. You write that Microsoft is in
a position of power, yet you are upset that EU is trying to use
authority. You seem to imply that they shouldn't have given Microsoft
free rein, but you imply that they should do nothing to affect global
business in any way, letting companies do anything because market
forces will take care of it. You suggested that the significant force
in business is a better product, which is silly. You even suggested
that companies should not complain to government about abuses.

> When it was seen that what Microsoft produced was the best thing since
> sliced bread, we were ALL hooked on to it, and supported it.
Wow -- not only hasn't everyone supported it, or been hooked on it, I
didn't think anyone in the industry believes it's been the best at
doing anything but keeping IT executives busy.

> Where's the objection to invisible taxes that have been applied by at least
> the top ten countries in the world to their businesses and people, in the
> same way objection is applied to Microsoft for doing so well in what it
> does?
The only thing Microsoft does well is generate more power and money for
itself. It does this by lying to it's customers and abusing it's power
over other companies.
It sounds like you are suggesting people don't complain about taxes.

> At this point you'll probably refer me to their bank balance - well don't
> bother, just stick to the main thrust of the issues about the EU and their
> erroneous reasons for not detailing exactly what they want, aside from
> Microsoft's money, that is.

But that was my question -- why do you say that EU has not detailed
what they want? Are you claiming that they never informed Microsoft
that the programming info was required for fair business, or that they
aren't asking Microsoft for specific information now?
And how do you know either one? I doubt any press story would give such
details -- it's very dry stuff. You'd have to have seen the specific
legal description to say if the claim was so general.

> Sales of products and consumers decision to buy or not to buy are hinged
> more often than not price and functionality followed closely by perceive
> reputation of the product's producer. That's, reputation, and even bad
> publicity can cause a company to have the consumer perceive both good and
> bad reputation in the fallout. Consumers who remain loyal, regardless of
> such positive or negative effects do so because they are assured
> sustainability. Sustainability doesn't feature with linux.
I think I followed you until you got to loyalty. How does loyalty of a
consumer to a product or company benefit ANYONE? If you insert loyalty
into the basic premise of economics, you only give that producer power,
and the ability to ignore things like consumer interests and law. And
while loyalty can certainly help that one company to sustain itself, it
interferes tragically in the capitalist-market presumptions you gave
above -- that market forces eventually get consumers the better
products and reward the better producers.
I am absolutely floored that you dumped in a vague and nonsensical
comment about Linux at the end of this -- I didn't see where Linux had
anything to do with the discussion at all. But since you did --
sustainability refers to the continued production, and presumably
continued improvement, of the useful product, yes? Then how can Linux,
an open-source product in continuous development regardless of consumer
demand be considered less sustainable than a product owned by just one
company and which doesn't even respond to market interests? Especially
in this case, where Microsoft is refusing to reveal information that
would allow others access to the sandbox?
If you think sustainability is desirable at all, you should be very
strongly in favor of multiple sources and open code and defeating
market control by single companies at every turn.

In article <>, FUD
<> wrote:

> >>> The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to 2m
> >>> euros ($2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to its
> >>> operating systems.
> >>
> >> Why should it have to?
> > Many companies have protections in place to support companies that
> > develop for the Windows platform; it's almost the only way to make
> > sure Microsoft creates opportunities for other businesses.
> > If that doesn's sound fair, think of some other way that people who
> > don't make the operating system can keep making and offering products.
>
> If they want to tie into Microsoft and its products, they /will/ /have/ to
> pay the going rate.
What are you implying? That Microsoft determines who gets and who pays
for access? That is exactly what most countries have said Microsoft
cannot do. If you believe in market force-style economics, you have to
see that giving one company control over the playing field defeats the
concepts of demand and product improvement.
If you are suggesting that Microsoft has earned more right to have
control over the industry just because it has a strong position, I
think you are throwing out the idea of government.

> >>> Brussels said the software giant had failed to supply adequate
> >>> information about its server programmes.
> >>
> >> How convenient? Don't state exactly what should be documented, then
> >> find that whatever is supplied as inadequate. [Everybody want to see
> >> your demise, please provide a blank cheque]
> > You understand that this note wasn't the actual complaint? I'm sure
> > the complaint and orders were quite specific -- as the charges would
> > be.
>
> They are indeed extremely complex things. But any objections were slow in
> coming. And now they are here, 'let's move the goal posts'.
It's true that government doesn't attack large comapnies as readily as
they challenge individuals -- but the reasons aren't because they are
trying to change the playing field. The reasons usually are because it
doesn't serve public interest (or government interest, or the interests
of the industry) to fight every small battle, especially with a company
that uses lawyers to do all the fighting. Microsoft uses lawyers to do
all the fighting. Microsoft has even used lawyers to do the product
improvement and develop new 'technologies' and 'features.'
Yes, it's unfortunate that it means government has to wait for a strong
moment to pick it's battles -- but that doesn't mean that Microsoft (or
whatever company) has earned the right to continue doing that kind of
business!

> > Bizarre -- most people see it exactly the opposite way -- where
> > Microsoft is the powerful thief acting against everyone else's
> > interests.
> > "Peacful and quiet enjoyment of its property" sounds like you read
> > that out of a trespassing clause. Microsoft is NOT attempting to
> > engage in peaceful and quiet enjoyment of any property. They are
> > trying to sell it as the controlling package for a huge segment of
> > the computer industry, and since that industry involves hundreds of
> > players, there are many many products and interests involved.
>
> So? If I want to wash cars on the forecourt of a supermarket I must pay to
> use that forecourt. Where's the problem?
The problem is that you weren't talking about Microsoft having control
over it's own product -- you were talking about Microsoft having
control over who participates in the computer industry. Microsoft does
not own that power, and the way that governments decided that is to
tell Microsoft that they had to provide ways for other companies to
fairly enter that market. That is a fair expectation, and it doesn't
require Microsoft to give up anything.

> They bundle AOL and other ISP
> software for which a premium is due, and paid.
A good example -- because AOL is not paid for giving Microsoft the
right to use their software. Microsoft makes AOL pay to allow their
software to be distributed with the install. In other words, Microsoft
decided who got to be put in that position, and they also got paid for
it, and they also get market influence with it, and they also get to
help decide the choices the consumers see (which is different from what
choices the consumers actually have.)
That is the opposite of your example -- the forecourt decides which
supermarket gets to be seen and used with it, kind of.

> You want the architecture to an OS that allows for the creation of a
> product, you must pay.
How do you figure? You think Microsoft should own the industry to such
a degre that they not only decide who gets to play, but they get to
charge tickets for it? That may seem fair, if you think they earned
that position of power, but it makes certain the complete failure of
development of the entire computing industry. It's very predictable --
the entire industry would fail in a short time if just one player had
control over so much.

> How have other companies that produce software products managed up until now
> then? I don't see the owners of Sage or Quicken saying they can't compete
> because Money is bundled with Microsoft products. Think carefully before you
> insert you squeal here> [...]
Are you kidding? You must not have watched the industry for very long.
Companies claim that kind of thing every single day, and in hundreds of
different ways, and about many more companies and situations than just
Microsoft! And your example is a good illustration of that, because
that has happened several times and in some very well-covered
arguments.

> To have it then bundled, you must pay. That's all just business sense.
And if Microsoft wants to include some feature or software package,
they must pay the owner to be allowed to include it. That's the
reverse, and it illustrates the same point.
Courts and economists have decided that the balance is found not in
making sure someone pays (which has to happen both ways,) but in making
sure that the industry has opportunities for more players.

> But
> that is not what the freeloaders have in mind. They want it all, but free,
> if you damn well please.
Freeloaders? Who are you casting in that role? I thought you were
saying that the EU was taking advantage of an opportunity to generate
funds out of Microsoft by making an impossible demand and fining them.

> >> Nothing more than machination of the envious.
> >
> > That's just stupid. If a guy robs a bank, do you assume police go
> > after him because they are just envious he got to the money first?
> > Microsoft is nothing to be envious of. But from many perspectives,
> > Microsoft is something to fight in order to help others.
>
> You assume a theft has taken place. I don't recall such a theft ever having
> been proven in a court of law, have you? I don't in fact ever recall theft
> as a charge ever being levelled at Microsoft, do you? Think carefully again
> before you squeal, 'anti-trust'.
Actually, theft has been proven against Microsoft many times, and in
it's recent case in the US, it lost heavily. Several times over.
But my example stands -- and I was using theft as an example of an
injustice so that I could suggest why it needed to be prosecuted.
The EU sees an injustice. They have decided that now is the time to
prosecute. Should they not?
From another angle -- the Eu has been warning Microsoft about
anticompetitive practices for some time. What device have they got that
can get Microsoft to consider changing it's practices, or begin to
argue for them, in the short term? The accepted method is a fine. There
are other methods, but many of those are far more damaging to the
company and certainly to the industry and consumers -- like closing the
business down flat until the issue is resolved. That is perfectly
reasonable and practical where the company hasn't done what is required
of it. You would expect a restaurant to be closed it it failed to met
cleanliness standards -- you wouldn't expect the state to just send a
legal notice and let the lawyers talk about it for a few months.

begin Mitch , wrote in message
31220050723506744%:
> In article <>, FUD
> <> wrote:
>
>>> But why do you believe the EU didn't declare what Microsoft needed
>>> to provide?
>>
>> It has nothing to do with what I believe, but facts.
> And you gave me no facts.

For your benefit and inability to grasp the obvious, I'll explain it again
to you.

Let me ask again -- why do you SAY that the
> EU isn't being specific about what is required?

Because it [the EU] is determining from a baseless and undefined order for
Microsoft to do so. The EU does not have the authority to impose such an
order. It will eventually be found to be illegal which will leave the EU
appear toothless which in turn will disadvantage the consumer.

I did warn you to keep up once already, didn't I?

>> If the EU want additional revenue, it is going to have to work
>> harder for it, and not for the long haul rely on its current posture
>> of hoping they can apply such illegal impositions on corporations.
>> They have been unreasonable, and vague if not ambiguous about their
>> demands, and the reason for that is they know damn well that to be
>> too specific will get them into hot water, namely, they will begin
>> to infringe on the rights of the corporation's business activity,
>> generally, and possibly its intellectual property, and those two
>> fact alone don't even scratch the surface of that issue.
>
>> NGO's or similar, Europe-wide, in fact world-wide, are pivotally
>> responsible for having allowed the likes of Microsoft free rein to
>> succeed until it suited them otherwise, and the pressure to bare for
>> change in the position of the goal-posts was only bought about by
>> whining non-competitive, ill-managed companies unable to apply
>> similar creativity in marketing or produce products comparable or
>> better that the consumer would readily use. Instead, they lobby
>> officials [stomp their feet] in an effort to compensate for their
>> own inadequacies and inability to compete. If their products are
>> good enough or better, let them flaunt it by encouraging more usage
>> of said products. If their products are better, users will naturally
>> flock... that's human nature, over which Microsoft has limited
>> control, but the creativity to overcome such advances.
>
> Those two paragraphs just blew me away. You are all over the place,
> ascribing Microsoft with powers over human nature and giving
> intellectual property rights in itself. You write that Microsoft is in
> a position of power, yet you are upset that EU is trying to use
> authority. You seem to imply that they shouldn't have given Microsoft
> free rein, but you imply that they should do nothing to affect global
> business in any way, letting companies do anything because market
> forces will take care of it. You suggested that the significant force
> in business is a better product, which is silly. You even suggested
> that companies should not complain to government about abuses.

Why don't you reread what I posted and slip your assumption into the places
where you see specific coloration, then I'll respond. As it is, your
assumptions are baseless and used, as worthless as they are, out of context

>> When it was seen that what Microsoft produced was the best thing
>> since sliced bread, we were ALL hooked on to it, and supported it.
> Wow -- not only hasn't everyone supported it, or been hooked on it, I
> didn't think anyone in the industry believes it's been the best at
> doing anything but keeping IT executives busy.

Can you quantify that?

>> Where's the objection to invisible taxes that have been applied by
>> at least the top ten countries in the world to their businesses and
>> people, in the same way objection is applied to Microsoft for doing
>> so well in what it does?
> The only thing Microsoft does well is generate more power and money
> for itself. It does this by lying to it's customers and abusing it's
> power over other companies.

And that hysterical view of yours is yet to be pvoen, is it not?

> It sounds like you are suggesting people don't complain about taxes.

I have made no suggestions as you keep implying, I make statements of fact.
For the facts, you must, it would appear, need to reread my posts. Stop
assuming you know what I mean, I am clear in what I have posted. If you
can't work it out, I 'suggest' you get someone who can do that for you.

>> At this point you'll probably refer me to their bank balance - well
>> don't bother, just stick to the main thrust of the issues about the
>> EU and their erroneous reasons for not detailing exactly what they
>> want, aside from Microsoft's money, that is.
>
> But that was my question -- why do you say that EU has not detailed
> what they want? Are you claiming that they never informed Microsoft
> that the programming info was required for fair business, or that they
> aren't asking Microsoft for specific information now?

Now? I've never implied otherwise.

> And how do you know either one? I doubt any press story would give
> such details -- it's very dry stuff. You'd have to have seen the
> specific legal description to say if the claim was so general.
>
>> Sales of products and consumers decision to buy or not to buy are
>> hinged more often than not price and functionality followed closely
>> by perceive reputation of the product's producer. That's,
>> reputation, and even bad publicity can cause a company to have the
>> consumer perceive both good and bad reputation in the fallout.
>> Consumers who remain loyal, regardless of such positive or negative
>> effects do so because they are assured sustainability.
>> Sustainability doesn't feature with linux.
> I think I followed you until you got to loyalty. How does loyalty of a
> consumer to a product or company benefit ANYONE?

You're off beam which would suggest you might not have been following
anything, but your own tail. Reread what I posted, but this time, don't read
into anything, other than what is cited. That way, you will not
misunderstand what you think I stated.

> If you insert loyalty into the basic premise of economics, you only give
> that producer
> power, and the ability to ignore things like consumer interests and
> law.

Not so, for If the law is adequately defined there should be no possibility
either for it to be flouted nor exercised successfully.

> And while loyalty can certainly help that one company to sustain
> itself, it interferes tragically in the capitalist-market
> presumptions you gave above -- that market forces eventually get
> consumers the better products and reward the better producers.

Did I say that? No, I did not say that. Reread not what you think I meant,
but what I stated.

> I am absolutely floored that you dumped in a vague and nonsensical
> comment about Linux at the end of this --

Surprise, surprise!

> I didn't see where Linux had anything to do with the discussion at all.

That would suggest, you do now.

> But since you did --
> sustainability refers to the continued production, and presumably
> continued improvement, of the useful product, yes?

That's right, yes, it means that, amongst other things.

> Then how can Linux,
> an open-source product in continuous development regardless of
> consumer demand be considered less sustainable than a product owned
> by just one company and which doesn't even respond to market
> interests?

Loaded questions are disallowed. Although I'll answer the first part "how
can Linux, an open-source product in continuous development regardless of
consumer demand be considered less sustainable" even though you answered it
yourself. "Capitalist-market[s]"

> Especially in this case, where Microsoft is refusing to reveal information
> that would allow others access to the sandbox?

Wow! Is Microsoft and the OS 'they' want information from that good and
beneficial that 'they' will make good returns? That would be, Pandora's box,
yes?

> If you think sustainability is desirable at all, you should be very
> strongly in favor of multiple sources and open code and defeating
> market control by single companies at every turn.

I disagree, because I have not once expected of you to infer that I think
there is no room for other companies in becoming sustainable, they are
again, your words, not mine - but if they can be, then they should be, linux
happens to not be one of them, but then, linux isn't a company per se, is
it? Nor have I made any statement singling companies out from any market, it
is you that has made those assumptions all on your own, and far too
frequently.

Companies must learn smarter, build in a way that allows them to diversify
quicker, and if they can't or don't, that shouldn't be the fault of a
company that doesn't suffer from ineptitude.

Next time you're passing Glaxo, pop in and ask them for the ingredients to
one of their most secret of drugs, see what they say.

As an aside, what are the chances you could learn to post properly next
time?

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.