Peter's Profile

Member since April 24, 2007

  • Name

    Peter da

  • Location:

Favorite Files

Recent Posts

  1. Comment - Microsoft Responds as EU Considers Break-Up

    (Apr 24, 2007 - 4:25 PM)

    (e) Screwed up editing a previous comment.

  2. Comment - Microsoft Responds as EU Considers Break-Up

    (Apr 24, 2007 - 3:43 PM)

    "The whole argument is the EU feels they should not have to pay fees to use someone elses technology."

    It's not the EU that would be paying the fees.

  3. Comment - Microsoft Responds as EU Considers Break-Up

    (Apr 24, 2007 - 3:41 PM)

    EU law dictates that monopolies can't abuse their monopoly power, and if they do they can be required to take actions to remove their ability to abuse their monopoly power.

    Microsoft is, here, in the supposed remedy that is designed to prevent them from abusing their monopoly power, attempting to abuse their monopoly power!

    The term for this kind of shenanigans is "contempt of court".

    You can go to jail for that.

  4. Comment - Microsoft Responds as EU Considers Break-Up

    (Apr 24, 2007 - 3:37 PM)

    The judge should have told Microsoft "no fees" up front.

    The EU is already bending over backwards for Microsoft by letting them charge "reasonable" fees for the documents they're required to publish. Instead, Microsoft came up with a fee schedule that completely locks out any open source projects... and THOSE are Microsoft's main competitors in the market.

    Microsoft is so completely abusing the good will of the court that I can honestly not imagine how anyone who actually understands the situation could defend them, unless they were constitutionally opposed to the very idea of open source software.

  5. Comment - Microsoft Responds as EU Considers Break-Up

    (Apr 24, 2007 - 3:31 PM)

    "So MS should just keep guessing what the EU wants?"

    MS should post all the protocol documents required by the settlement free online, with no charge or royalties. The EU is already bending over backwards by saying that they *can* charge for the documents they are required to publish. The idea that they should be allowed to use this as a way to further expand their monopoly by choking off open source projects is ... I don't know, there really are no words to cover the depths I'd have to plumb to describe it.

    This isn't a case of a "bad relationship". This is a case of the guy who lost a court case trying to fast-talk the judge into handing him the decision anyway.