Microsoft concerns over possible unfair competition

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by The Competition, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. The New Zealand Herald reports on Microsoft's concerns over possible unfair
    competition, as a result of plans to develop a competing operating system.

    Intending to offer an inexpensive and trustworthy alternative based on
    Linux, it would have the potential to restrict Microsoft's domination and
    monetary extraction techniques in a number of large Asain markets.

    More at www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522451
     
    The Competition, Sep 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Competition

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from The Competition of Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:43:
    > The New Zealand Herald reports on Microsoft's concerns over possible
    > unfair competition, as a result of plans to develop a competing operating
    > system.
    >
    > Intending to offer an inexpensive and trustworthy alternative based on
    > Linux, it would have the potential to restrict Microsoft's domination and
    > monetary extraction techniques in a number of large Asian markets.
    >
    > More at www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522451


    It's just Microsoft showing their true colours.
    Microsoft wants to deny consumers choice. They hate the idea that users
    might be able to make their own choice of software, even if that software
    is more secure and more reliable, and offers better performance and more
    freedom in its use.

    Surely, Microsoft can't be against government intervention. Elsewhere, they
    have instigated this themselves, even getting the US government to heavy on
    foreign countries in favour of Microsoft.

    Or, you're not accusing Microsoft of being hypocritical, are you?


    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Peter" wrote
    > Microsoft wants to deny consumers choice.


    Quite the opposite, they want users to choose, rather than have govt
    intervening.

    > Surely, Microsoft can't be against government intervention. Elsewhere,

    they
    > have instigated this themselves, even getting the US government to heavy

    on
    > foreign countries in favour of Microsoft.


    Have you ever accidentally run a red light, jay walk, litter, do anything
    "illegal"? if so, did you run to the police station and report yourself.
    People use others when it is convenient...that includes MS and the govt.

    > Or, you're not accusing Microsoft of being hypocritical, are you?

    only as hypocritical as almost all others.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 9, 2003
    #3
  4. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Patrick FitzGerald" wrote
    > They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
    > called Palladium.



    Yuo gotta remember that more than MS is involved with this one.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 9, 2003
    #4
  5. The Competition

    steve Guest

    T.N.O. allegedly said:

    > "The Competition" wrote
    >> The New Zealand Herald reports on Microsoft's concerns over possible

    > unfair
    >> competition, as a result of plans to develop a competing operating
    >> system.

    >
    > good on them.
    > "We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software
    > industry," said Tom Robertson, Microsoft's Tokyo-based director for
    > Government affairs in Asia.


    The market IS deciding....and these governments, backed by some very large
    local corporations, are building an alternative for themselves as the
    supposedly 'free' market (in fact monopolised by Microsoft) is not able to
    provide them with one.
     
    steve, Sep 9, 2003
    #5
  6. The Competition

    steve Guest

    T.N.O. allegedly said:

    > "Patrick FitzGerald" wrote
    >> They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
    >> called Palladium.

    >
    > Yuo gotta remember that more than MS is involved with this one.


    They are just bitching and moaning because Governments are the one player in
    the market they can't run into the ground and force out of busines.

    This action by China, Japan and Korea is a reaction to the US blocking of an
    Asia Pacific initiative to back Open Source at a Tokyo conference a few
    months ago.

    Since the A/P-wide organisation was obstructed from making it policy, they -
    and other countries like India - have decided to do it unilaterally.

    Bush gave them the lead there.
     
    steve, Sep 9, 2003
    #6
  7. On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:26:16 +1200, "T.N.O." <> wrote:

    >"Patrick FitzGerald" wrote
    >> They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
    >> called Palladium.

    >
    >
    >Yuo gotta remember that more than MS is involved with this one.



    That is so, but Micro$oft is the demon driving the evil plan

    Patrick
     
    Patrick FitzGerald, Sep 10, 2003
    #7
  8. The Competition

    Rider Guest


    >
    > They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
    > called Palladium.
    >
    >
    > Let us ensure they never suceed in that very nasty plan
    >


    How do you propose to do that??

    Rider
     
    Rider, Sep 10, 2003
    #8
  9. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "steve" wrote
    > Put it this way.....I never got a monopoly one streetlights and I never

    got
    > paid US$50 billions for crossing the road illegally.
    >
    > Your petty infractions are hardly comparable to ripping of billions and
    > billions globally through illegal business practices.


    Even evil genius's have to start somewhere...

    > > only as hypocritical as almost all others.

    >
    > Two wrongs make a right is corrupt thinking...and means there is no law.
    > You don't want to go there. It's not nice.


    I didnt say that two wrongs does make a right... just said that they are
    only as hypocritical as others.
    Also, Im not going anywhere :)
     
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #9
  10. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Patrick FitzGerald" wrote
    > >Yuo gotta remember that more than MS is involved with this one.

    > That is so, but Micro$oft is the demon driving the evil plan


    and Intel.... and ...
     
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <bjm2fk$kcl32$-berlin.de>, "T.N.O." <> wrote:
    >"steve" wrote
    >> They also required the PC OEM vendor to pay them a windows license fee for
    >> each system shipped whether it had Windows loaded or not.
    >> If they didn't agree to sign such contracts, they effectively had to pay
    >> retail price for their Windows....and that made them uncompetitive for
    >> total price.


    >So they had a choice... I have to drive the speed limit, or get ticketed for
    >speeding, it is a choice that I have, as it happens, I do a little of both.


    Well , technically I suppose yes ... but wouldn't a fairer analogy be
    something like ...
    Buy a car from me for all your customers ... even tho some of them may not
    want one ?

    ie the price "consequence" is not related to the choice :)

    Bruce

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 10, 2003
    #11
  12. "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > this quote is from The Competition of Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:43:
    > > The New Zealand Herald reports on Microsoft's concerns over possible
    > > unfair competition, as a result of plans to develop a competing

    operating
    > > system.
    > >
    > > Intending to offer an inexpensive and trustworthy alternative based on
    > > Linux, it would have the potential to restrict Microsoft's domination

    and
    > > monetary extraction techniques in a number of large Asian markets.
    > >
    > > More at www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522451

    >
    > It's just Microsoft showing their true colours.
    > Microsoft wants to deny consumers choice. They hate the idea that users
    > might be able to make their own choice of software, even if that software
    > is more secure and more reliable, and offers better performance and more
    > freedom in its use.
    >
    > Surely, Microsoft can't be against government intervention. Elsewhere,

    they
    > have instigated this themselves, even getting the US government to heavy

    on
    > foreign countries in favour of Microsoft.
    >
    > Or, you're not accusing Microsoft of being hypocritical, are you?


    Assessment of background circumstances
    ------------------------------------------

    # Microsoft's has monopoly power in the PC operating system (OS) market:
    * Microsoft's 90-95% share of the OS market has remained stable for many
    years
    * Extreme barriers to entry exist in OS software, due to the "network
    effects" that prevent new OS products (such as IBM's OS/2) from being
    successful
    * Microsoft has increased Windows prices while all other software and
    hardware prices fell

    # Microsoft used its monopoly power over Windows to dictate terms to
    Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Internet Service Providers
    (ISPs) that protected its monopoly and effectively ended the "browser war"
    with Netscape:
    * Compaq, Gateway and others have "no alternative" to Windows
    * OEMs were forced to use IE in lieu of Netscape's browser and feared
    retaliation from Microsoft if they sided with Netscape
    * ISPs were paid to use IE exclusively, taking away Netscape's outlet
    for retail distribution

    # Microsoft tried to "integrate" IE into Windows 98 to end the threat of a
    new browser-based "platform" that could replace Windows:
    * Microsoft's claim that IE is essential to Windows 98 is false; IE is a
    stand-alone product
    * Microsoft deliberately chose to bundle IE with Windows 98 in order to
    "crush" Netscape
    * Internet companies, such as AOL and Intuit, were forced to use the IE
    browser exclusively due to Microsoft's power over the bundled
    Windows/browser "desktop"

    # Microsoft engaged in other anticompetitive practices designed to maintain
    its Windows OS monopoly, including: Polluting Sun's Java cross-platform
    technology, thereby turning an open standard that threatened Windows into a
    proprietary product that reinforced its monopoly.
    * Weakening IBM's OS/2 operating system by denying licenses for
    Windows-compatibility and making application programs for its newest version
    of Windows incompatible with this competition
    * Forcing Intel to back off producing software that could compete with
    Microsoft

    # Microsoft's practices have harmed consumers:
    * Consumers have been hurt by rising prices for Windows at a time when
    prices for all other software has declined
    * By eliminating competition, Microsoft has deprived consumers of OS
    choice
    * The likely demise of alternative platforms stifles innovations that
    would give consumers new and improved technologies
    * Microsoft's attempt to "kill" Internet and network-based open
    standards threatens to undermine the most technologically fervent,
    consumer-friendly "space" in the computer Industry
    * Microsoft's extension of its Windows monopoly into Internet content
    would limit choice and innovation in electronic commerce and Internet-based
    information

    www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/trial_exec.php3

    "As a condition to licensing the Windows operating system, Microsoft forced
    computer makers like Gateway to agree to use the Microsoft screen as the one
    that opens automatically when consumers turn on their computers."

    "Compaq, the world's largest computer maker, also wanted to configure its
    own screen display, in this case by deleting an icon for Microsoft's browser
    and replacing it with an icon for a competing browser. Microsoft informed
    Compaq in writing that it would terminate its license to the Windows
    operating system unless it shipped the Microsoft screen, complete with
    whatever icons (including icons for third parties, as Micron discovered)
    Microsoft dictates."

    "The contract disclosed at the Senate hearings showed that Earthlink was
    required to agree that it would "not advertise or otherwise promote any
    non-MS web browser." It also had to agree that "at the time of ISP Service
    request from an ISP Subscriber, [Earthlink] shall not express or imply that
    an alternate browser is available."

    www.procompetition.org/research/crossroads/cheese.html

    "This is not an industry problem but rather bullying by a monopolist. With
    more than 90% of personal computers carrying the Windows operating system,
    Microsoft had influence over other companies and has used it to head off
    competition from potential rivals--most notably browser pioneer Netscape
    Communications Corp. (NSCP). Microsoft, Justice claims, was even able to
    push around giants such as Apple Computer (AAPL), Compaq (CPQ), and Intel
    (INTC)."

    www.businessweek.com/1998/44/b3602072.htm

    Microsoft response
    --------------------

    "We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software
    industry,"

    www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522451

    You decide
    ------------

    According to Webster's;

    Hypocritical - Of or pertaining to a hypocrite, or to hypocrisy.

    Hypocrite - One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of
    winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns
    to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one
    who simulates virtue or piety.
     
    The Competition, Sep 10, 2003
    #12
  13. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "The Competition" wrote
    > Assessment of background circumstances
    > ------------------------------------------
    >
    > # Microsoft's has monopoly power in the PC operating system (OS) market:
    > * Microsoft's 90-95% share of the OS market has remained stable for

    many
    > years


    That show signs of having a good product... Look at Toyota.

    > * Extreme barriers to entry exist in OS software, due to the "network
    > effects" that prevent new OS products (such as IBM's OS/2) from being
    > successful


    Barriers to entry are not MS's fault... the market decides how hard it is
    for competitors to enter.

    > * Microsoft has increased Windows prices while all other software and
    > hardware prices fell


    Errr, really, Leading edge video cards are still way too expensive, Cad
    hasnt got cheaper, AV hasnt become cheaper.

    > # Microsoft used its monopoly power over Windows to dictate terms to
    > Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Internet Service Providers
    > (ISPs) that protected its monopoly and effectively ended the "browser war"
    > with Netscape:


    Do they have to sign the agreements? no... but they do, they have a choice,
    they could have gone Linux, but realised that MS is what the Market wants.

    > * Compaq, Gateway and others have "no alternative" to Windows


    Errr, Linux?

    > * OEMs were forced to use IE in lieu of Netscape's browser and feared
    > retaliation from Microsoft if they sided with Netscape


    That was their choice.

    > * ISPs were paid to use IE exclusively, taking away Netscape's outlet
    > for retail distribution


    If Netscape was unable to compete, their problem, not MS

    > # Microsoft tried to "integrate" IE into Windows 98 to end the threat of a
    > new browser-based "platform" that could replace Windows:


    I never saw the problem with this... I use Mozilla on Win2k, it is my
    choice... if users are too dumb to look for alternatives, that is their
    problem. Dont blam customer stupidity on MS.

    > * Microsoft's claim that IE is essential to Windows 98 is false; IE is

    a
    > stand-alone product


    Does it actually matter?

    > * Microsoft deliberately chose to bundle IE with Windows 98 in order

    to
    > "crush" Netscape


    It's called business... I got a free chocolate bar the otherday when I got a
    large chocolate bar... it's a conspiracy its a conspiracy.

    > * Internet companies, such as AOL and Intuit, were forced to use the

    IE
    > browser exclusively due to Microsoft's power over the bundled
    > Windows/browser "desktop"


    Their choice... they could have not signed the deal...

    > # Microsoft engaged in other anticompetitive practices designed to

    maintain
    > its Windows OS monopoly, including: Polluting Sun's Java cross-platform
    > technology, thereby turning an open standard that threatened Windows into

    a
    > proprietary product that reinforced its monopoly.
    > * Weakening IBM's OS/2 operating system by denying licenses for
    > Windows-compatibility and making application programs for its newest

    version
    > of Windows incompatible with this competition


    Dont know enough to comment on these ones.

    > * Forcing Intel to back off producing software that could compete with
    > Microsoft


    Did someone at Intel sign an agreement... there it goes again... it was
    their choice.

    > # Microsoft's practices have harmed consumers:
    > * Consumers have been hurt by rising prices for Windows at a time when
    > prices for all other software has declined


    See above where I gave examples to the contrary.

    > * By eliminating competition, Microsoft has deprived consumers of OS
    > choice


    Linux has been around for years, inablility on users part to look for
    alternate products is not the fault of MS.

    > "As a condition to licensing the Windows operating system, Microsoft

    forced
    > computer makers like Gateway to agree to use the Microsoft screen as the

    one
    > that opens automatically when consumers turn on their computers."


    How did they force Gateway to "agree"<-note the word agree... meaning that
    they... well, agreed to it, implying that they had a choice.

    > "Compaq, the world's largest computer maker, also wanted to configure its
    > own screen display, in this case by deleting an icon for Microsoft's

    browser
    > and replacing it with an icon for a competing browser. Microsoft informed
    > Compaq in writing that it would terminate its license to the Windows
    > operating system unless it shipped the Microsoft screen, complete with
    > whatever icons (including icons for third parties, as Micron discovered)
    > Microsoft dictates."


    So it was part of the licience that Compaq agreed to... again, something
    that they didn't have to agree to, but they did.

    > "The contract disclosed at the Senate hearings showed that Earthlink was
    > required to agree that it would "not advertise or otherwise promote any
    > non-MS web browser." It also had to agree that "at the time of ISP Service
    > request from an ISP Subscriber, [Earthlink] shall not express or imply

    that
    > an alternate browser is available."


    Again note the word agree featuring in the quoted material... they could
    have "declined"

    > www.businessweek.com/1998/44/b3602072.htm
    > "We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software
    > industry,"


    If the market has govt intervention, then it will no longer be a "free"
    market.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #13
  14. The Competition

    steve Guest

    T.N.O. allegedly said:

    > "The Competition" wrote


    ..........

    >> * Extreme barriers to entry exist in OS software, due to the "network
    >> effects" that prevent new OS products (such as IBM's OS/2) from being
    >> successful

    >
    > Barriers to entry are not MS's fault... the market decides how hard it is
    > for competitors to enter.


    You need to read the judgement in the US anti-trust case that saw Microsoft
    convicted of 12 illegal practices.

    If you had read it, you could not baldy assert that barriers to entry are
    not Microsoft's fault.

    In secret agreements, Microsoft required OEM PC vendors to NOT preload any
    alternative operating systems.

    This is why, from the time that Win95 came out, you never saw a system for
    sale from any major vendor that had two operating systems preloaded.

    They also required the PC OEM vendor to pay them a windows license fee for
    each system shipped whether it had Windows loaded or not.

    If they didn't agree to sign such contracts, they effectively had to pay
    retail price for their Windows....and that made them uncompetitive for
    total price.

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

    > If the market has govt intervention, then it will no longer be a "free"
    > market.


    If the market has ceased to function due to illegal maintenance of a
    monopoly, then government intervention is the only way out.

    This is why anti-trust laws exist. It is recognised that markets fail,
    whether through natural processes (like a game of monopoly....) or through
    the unchecked illegal activities of one of the vendors.

    John Rockafeller (sp?) who founded Standard Oil had his own private army to
    enforce the writ of his company. A true robber baron....or in Afghan
    parlance...a warlord.

    His abuse of his monopoly and wealth for political influence caused the US
    to put anti-trust laws in place to start with.
     
    steve, Sep 10, 2003
    #14
  15. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "steve" wrote
    > > Barriers to entry are not MS's fault... the market decides how hard it

    is
    > > for competitors to enter.

    >
    > You need to read the judgement in the US anti-trust case that saw

    Microsoft
    > convicted of 12 illegal practices.
    > If you had read it, you could not baldy assert that barriers to entry are
    > not Microsoft's fault.
    >
    > In secret agreements, Microsoft required OEM PC vendors to NOT preload any
    > alternative operating systems.


    But who agreed to that, the companies involved didn't have to sign the
    agreements...

    > They also required the PC OEM vendor to pay them a windows license fee for
    > each system shipped whether it had Windows loaded or not.
    > If they didn't agree to sign such contracts, they effectively had to pay
    > retail price for their Windows....and that made them uncompetitive for
    > total price.


    So they had a choice... I have to drive the speed limit, or get ticketed for
    speeding, it is a choice that I have, as it happens, I do a little of both.

    > > If the market has govt intervention, then it will no longer be a "free"
    > > market.

    >
    > If the market has ceased to function due to illegal maintenance of a
    > monopoly, then government intervention is the only way out.


    If there is competition then it is not a monopoly... MS may behave like a
    monopoly, but there is competition, and it is getting better each and every
    revision.

    > This is why anti-trust laws exist. It is recognised that markets fail,
    > whether through natural processes (like a game of monopoly....) or through
    > the unchecked illegal activities of one of the vendors.


    Incidentally, I love the game monopoly, and I have never lost, even from
    playing in my younger days against my sisters... I never made any friends
    doing it though, but it is business... not pleasure.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #15
  16. In article <bjm4f5$kdi8e$-berlin.de>, "T.N.O." <> wrote:
    >"Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    >> ie the price "consequence" is not related to the choice :)

    >
    >Actually I'd imagine that the price consequence would have been one of the
    >only things that they were looking at... I'd imagine that on the scale that
    >they buy MS OEM liciences, that it was remarkably cheaper to buy a licience
    >for each machine whether or not they were going to use them or not, than
    >buying individual non OEM liciences for each machine that requires it.


    Agreed. But the choice (a basic freedom of expression if you like :) ) did not
    have "even" consequences ... or even "fair" consequences I would say. Sounds
    like your basic blackmail to me. YMMV. :)

    >I know of a few companies that bought 10 packs of liciences even though they
    >only intended on using 8, simply because it was cheaper, for essencially the
    >same deal.


    and at that level that's a reasonable choice. When, however, those same
    companies have little choice (yes, some I admit, but not much) when faced with
    buying licences and the agreement says "you can't even use anyhting else" then
    I say that's not a "choice" but again, basic restriction of trade - blackmail
    if you like.Again, YMMV.
    Try it with anything except software and see where you end up :)

    Bruce





    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 10, 2003
    #16
  17. The Competition

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    > ie the price "consequence" is not related to the choice :)


    Actually I'd imagine that the price consequence would have been one of the
    only things that they were looking at... I'd imagine that on the scale that
    they buy MS OEM liciences, that it was remarkably cheaper to buy a licience
    for each machine whether or not they were going to use them or not, than
    buying individual non OEM liciences for each machine that requires it.

    I know of a few companies that bought 10 packs of liciences even though they
    only intended on using 8, simply because it was cheaper, for essencially the
    same deal.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 10, 2003
    #17
  18. Hi there,

    Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
    > Micro$oft is hyocritical to complain about unfauir competition.
    >
    > They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
    > called Palladium.
    >
    > Let us ensure they never suceed in that very nasty plan


    Agreed! It doesn't matter how bloody fast it goes...I'm sticking
    to AMD CPU's (unless they sell out and implement similar into
    next-gen CPU's too!).

    If AMD sell out I'll give up on x86 PC's and get Linux on a MIPS
    or PPC architecture instead...

    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Sep 10, 2003
    #18
  19. The Competition

    Ben Perston Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:05:50 +1200, T.N.O. wrote:

    > "steve" wrote
    >> Your petty infractions are hardly comparable to ripping of billions and
    >> billions globally through illegal business practices.

    >
    > Even evil genius's have to start somewhere...


    Careful not to give away too much of your ingenious plan...
     
    Ben Perston, Sep 10, 2003
    #19
  20. The Competition

    bt Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:23:41 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
    <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:

    >> If AMD sell out I'll give up on x86 PC's and get Linux on a MIPS
    >> or PPC architecture instead...

    >
    >Of course AMD will, the market will demand it as a security feature...


    Like they were 'demanding' .net ? Like they were 'demanding' 'product
    activation' ? DRM ?

    The only group demanding it so far are Microsoft. And they are
    gauranteed to use it as part of their 'lock-in' strategy as the fear
    having to compete honestly.

    The concept is fundementally flawed for atleast two reasons:

    1. People do not trust Microsoft - and for good reasons.

    2. It reduces the usability, compatibility, and flexibility of the
    computer. It also adds complexity.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 10, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jose Ferrer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    476
    Jim Watt
    May 24, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    580
  3. Jonathan Walker

    Microsoft cites GPLv3 Legal Concerns

    Jonathan Walker, Jul 7, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    352
    Jonathan Walker
    Jul 7, 2007
  4. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    941
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  5. NotMe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    525
    NotMe
    Mar 9, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page