MS forced to re-build Windows XP
 

Microsoft faces huge fine, forced to re-build Windows XP by EU

Vole and EU negotiations collapse

By INQUIRER staff: Sunday 14 March 2004, 11:13
A BREAKDOWN in negotiations between the European Union and Microsoft is likely to mean punishment for the Redmond Vole.

A report on Reuters claims that a draft decision to punish Microsoft will be passed tomorrow.

It suggests Microsoft will be made to share code with other makers of software for servers, and to create a version of Windows XP, without Media Player 9 included.

And Microsoft is also likely to have to pay hundreds of millions of Euros when the EU committee meets later on this month.

If the report turns out to be correct, the move will cause a great deal of confusion in the channel - coping with the different flavours of Microsoft software is already difficult enough. Another version of Windows XP will just compound channel misery.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14713

I want this version of Windows XP.
Does it get rid of the .NET shit too?

Welcome to the next version of Windows, Windows XP Home Corporate Edition WithoutMedia Without.NET Datacenter Advanced Server.

BTW, I think you get rid of the .NET shit simply by not installing it from WindowsUpdate.

Good. Their anti-competetive practices have gone on too long.

Very good news indeed, though it appears that the article was biased a little towards the company. It seems that the guy who wrote it completely ignores how much damage Microsoft has already done by doing their anti-competitive bullshit, and goes straight to showing the sympathy towards the Empire. Rooting for Microsoft is like rooting for al-Qaida.

I was thinking more along the lines of the .NET passport integration of windows with MSN services.

Rubbish. All Linux distros and Apple computers are bundled with media players that are even harder to uninstall than Microsoft's.

Such an action will likely piss off Joe-users who won't know how to play CDs with their new computers. If competitive media players want to compete, they should concetrate on making a good product and advertising it as such. I know far too many people who actually converted from Winamp to WMP9. Who's fault is that?

Convert from Winamp?!? Why in the hell would they do something like that?!?! WMP gets almost no support from its users and the open source community. I don't know about them but I need my plug-ins.

They think it looks prettier and like how it snaps to the taskbar. They don't like fiddling with skins either. [shrug]

Dude, This is for the Server Version of Windows. I don't need crappy media software that is fully integrated into my operating system taking up startup resources in my server.

As far as I know the apple software doesnt take up startup resources as with the linux software. And its pretty easy to uninstall something from a mac. Ugh, delete it. I know far to many people who hate Windows Media Player but are to ignorant to switch to something better. EVERYONE I KNOW is like that. I show them alternatives: winamp, music match, foobar2000, and they pick acording to their style and preferences.

In Conclusion, WMP9 blows balls, I wish Microfuckers would allow me to install 6.4 on XP Pro. I have to copy and paste from an older version of Windows to get that setup running.

If you don't want it in linux, dont install it, pick another distro, or, here's the point that makes yours invalid - make your own distro.

The default setting for Linux distros, such as Mandrake, installs their media player for you. Now arguably the difference is that MS doesn't give you a choice, the default setting is the only setting. However getting rid of WMP9 is as easy as deleting the exe file, which I have done on my computer much to my glee.
Getting rid of a Linux media player require far more expertise and know-how than simply right-clicking a shortcut, and deleting the exe.
"Making my own distro" is an absurb point. Getting rid of WMP9 is infinitely easier than making my own distro.

haha, nice sig killswitch..! :)

Ya, I leave it there to deter people from thinking I'm some MS fan-boy. I'm not. I just don't think they've done anything (outside of accounting fraud) that merits anti-trust legislation. After using Mandrake for a few weeks it became strikingly obvious why people are using XP, and believe me, it's got nothing to do with the MS monopoly.

yeah, because due to their anti-competitive practices and their extortion, they have made most software comaptible w/ windows while it isn't compatible with Linux.

I find it ironic, however, that openoffice is more compatible with any office document (back to 95, i think) than Microsoft's own Office is (for instance, while openoffice can read a word 95 doc, word 2003 cannot read word 95, you get the idea.....)

I also find it ironic that you said "it's got nothing to do with the MS monopoly" although we did agree that Microsoft is actually not a monopoly so much as monopolistic.

It is good to see that at least someone in the EU isn't too afraid of big companies and actually gave Microsoft what it deserved......:up:

Extortion does not apply, although it sounds very evil. Basically it means using coercion to get something you want. And to coerce someone you need to threaten them, and that must come through real violence, not economic ones. In the context of microsoft it does not apply.
The US Postal service uses coercion for example. If anyone attempts to compete with them they can sue them. If they refuse to pay they go to jail.

Monopolistic, in an economic sense, means "a firm that sells a product that is similar but not identical to others". For example a potato farmer is not monopolistic because his potatos do not differ from his competitors.
Levis jeans however makes a product that is signicantly different from say, Eddie Bauer. As does Toyota and Ford. They are monopolistic. Similarly, Microsoft sells products that are similar to Mandrake, RedHat, PlayStation, SuSE, etc.
To be a monopoly you must be the single provider of a good or service. Microsoft does not fit this bill in any sense. All the talk of Netscape, OEM agreements, profit margins, stock prices, or any other popular Microsoft arguments are meaningless: Microsoft is not a monopoly in an economic sense. They have market dominance, but that is very different and has much less power than being a true monopoly.

This EU agreement will do more harm than good. The free market will destroy Microsoft, as it did A&P Grocers, the Ford empire, and countless others in the past.

uh, that's what I said. I said they are not a monopoly. reread my post or something.....

Right. You said they were:
Extortionists/anticompetetive
Monopolistic

However there are many monopolistic companies, as I had listed. Solely being monopolistic is not enough grounds for guilt. If you weren't insinuating this I have no idea what the point of your post was, rather than to point out the obvious: Microsoft is not a monopoly, they are monopolistic.

The point of my post was to show the flaws in your logic, and to say that Microsoft deserves "anti-trust legislation."

You say that Microsoft is not a monopoly yet you say that XP's superiority has nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly:igor:

XP's superiority comes from illegal actions that merit this legislation. There. enough said.

There is plenty more to be said as none of these accusations have been made aware:

1. Please point out the flaw in my logic.
2. I should have put Microsoft's monopoly in quotes, as in:

If this is the flaw in my logic then I apologize.

3. Which actions have Microsoft done that warrant not only legal, but moral action? They perpetrated accounting fraud and were duly punished for it, and rightly so. What else have they done that is as clearly illegal?

I believe I have already answered your question--edit: the "with linux" part isnt important; rather, Microsoft used extortion to limit other companies' free choice between Microsoft and, say, apple.

Anticompetetive is a meaningless word. Essentially anything that makes it harder for a company to compete is anticompetetive. Such as charging lower prices, making a better product, advertising better, catering to a specific target market, cutting deals, etc. Are all these things illegal? What specific things did Microsoft do that were 'anticompetetive' AND illegal?

Microsoft has hardly forced the thousands of software companies to make their products compatible with Windows. Rather, it was the independent choice of these software makers to cater to the most widely use operating system. Once again, it is not directly Microsoft's fault these independent programmers chose to code in XP rather than Linux or Apple.

I've already refuted your 'extortion' claim in an earlier post, if you wish to rebut by all means go ahead.

Holy shit, you reply fast:) :p

You are right, anti-competitive is a fairly meaningless word. I'll go back to extortion.

Uh-huh. sure......so, lets say I am going to keep you from getting any money or food until you agree with me that Microsoft uses extortion. I am not using actual violence. However, I am damaging you from economic and health standpoints.

Yeah, right.......why not?

Microsoft basically said that people would use their products (and possibly nobody elses) or Microsoft would not let them use any of their products. Even though Microsoft might not have been such a great product, not having ANY of their products would serioudly hurt vendors financially.


coerce
v : to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical,
moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a
job in the city" [syn: hale, pressure, force]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Coerce \Co*erce"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Coerced; p. pr. & vb.
n. Coercing.] [L. co["e]rcere; co- + arcere to shut up, to
press together. See Ark.]
1. To restrain by force, especially by law or authority; to
repress; to curb. --Burke.

--Ayliffe.

2. To compel or constrain to any action; as, to coerce a man
to vote for a certain candidate.

3. To compel or enforce; as, to coerce obedience.

Please note that it does not always involve the use of force.

I'm sorry; I do not use "monopolistic" correctly........I use it to mean 'having the features/abilities of a monopoly' while that is not what it really means........so, one might say, using my definition:
"Microsoft is 'monopolistic' in that people still buy windows and office when they cost hundreds of dollars." etc etc etc.

I propose we take a legal definition, that is: "Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation". In this case violence/threat is the precursor.
Those other definitions may apply in more poetic/dramatic circumstances, but extortion is usually used in a legal setting. It is a derisive term that accuses someone of doing something illegal. It also sounds more mature than saying "Microsoft is mean" or "Microsoft are bullies". People commonly use it in a legal sense.

If you do not wish to use the legal definiton, that is fine. But then you must understand it would hold no more weight or brevity than calling Microsoft "mean" and this discussion would be rather pointless as (in the case of extortion) I am interested in the legal definition. If you feel your Webster's definition should also encompass legal extortion as well you are welcome to argue it. The law is not always right (especially since I am no fan of antitrust legislation).

Therefore, does Microsoft use threat or violence to sell its products? This brings up your argument that Microsoft "threatened" computer vendors that they would charge them more for their higher licensing fees. You argue this would financially set them back, causing them to be unable to afford certain things, perhaps food, healthcare, housing etc. to the detriment of their body/mind.
I am no lawyer, but I believe extortion must be more direct than this. There are hundreds of occasions where people are financially setback by the decisions of others. Employers that do not pay a good salary, surgeons that charge thousands of dollars, even bread is unaffordable to some parties.

While you may have a case for a more general definition of extortion, I don't think you could argue legal one. Indeed, Microsoft has yet to be sued on such a premise. For Microsoft, the term 'extortion' is more a convenient term to add a sense of melodrama to the author's case.

As I said, economically, monopolistic is many suppliers with goods that are slightly different from each other. A monopoly is really an all or nothing term. For example your gas company is a monopoly. If another gas company moved in the initial gas company wouldn't be "kind of a monopoly", the 2 combined companies would be a "duopoly".
For your second point, people also spend hundreds of dollars on clothing where other substitutes remain. Their reasons for doing this are usually tied in with the product in question. If a competetitor wishes to 'overcharge' and 'get a piece of the pie' it is their responsibility to provide an equally desirable product.

Entertaining dialogue here. Very interesting!

Microsoft's actions certainly fall under the "intimidation" part of your legal defintion.

Finally we agree on something;)

Was this supposed to prove anything relevant?

True. However, your examples are of people making a profit, while Microsoft essentially threatened to stop people from making money. Besides: 1)get a different employer, 2)choose a different doctor (or go to Mexico;)), and 3)yeah, bread is unaffordable to some people, but please note the existance of many aid programs that exist.


ex·tor·tion (plural ex·tor·tions)
noun
1. [law] obtaining something by illegal threats: the crime of obtaining something such as money from somebody using illegal methods of persuasion.


This defintion hinges on what is considered "illegal means of persuasion"; however, in a free market, pressuring someone the way Microsoft did is, to the best of my knowledge, illegal.

sry for double post but, aflicted, if you think this is interesting, you should see the bitching here

Actually, according to US law:

Title 18 - Part 1: Chapter 95 Sec. 1951 (b)(2)
The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Microsoft has done none of these things. You argue that they have "prevented people from making profit", which was not included in your previous definition of "seriously hurt financially".
Now your definition extortion seems to be limited to "no one shall prevent people from making profit". Once again, very general and incongruent with the legal definition. Would it be extortion if Target decided not to carry ****'s products? You may then argue that **** could easily go to Sears instead. But Target is not Sears, and surely their profits will be hurt. Or does the degree of financial burden now play a factor? If so, how much should this limit be set at?
If you could play judge in this scenario, what would you ask Microsoft to do? Prevent all license agreements, thus driving up the price of PCs? Force them to only charge a discount price? Prevent any exclusivity contracts even though the 2 parties mutually agree upon the terms?

In any case US law seems to exclude your terms. I was arguing it in the event you disagreed with the US law.

As for your "how is this relevent" comment: It was in response to your erroneous definition of monopolistic and why it is not applicable.

I see you admit defeat on the coercion issue so you have moved on to extortion......

:rolleyes: They prevent them from making profit which leades the vendors to be seriously hurt financially. I sm still trying to decide if this part of your post was a joke or not.

Under that(legal) defintion of extortion, you could be right or wrong. It depends on what you consider to be "obtaining property" and if you include free choice something you "have" that can be "stolen".

No. 'now my defintion extortion seems to be limited to "no one shall threaten to (ie blackmail) prevent people from making a profit and excercising free choice in order to advance their own goals and profits"' would be more along the lines.

You know he believes he understands what he thinks you said, but you're not sure he realizes what he heard is not what you meant.

That is awfully pretentious. I only discussed coercion because it was in the legal definition. But the US law does not use. It is thus irrelevant to this discussion, now that the most important meaning of extortion has been found. Let's move along to extortion, as coercion is no longer a factor in this discussion:

Obtaining property is one criteria. The other criteria is:
"induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
The word "force" cannot be applied too liberally. Legally, judges are required to restrain the definition of "force" in the context of "violence, or fear". Furthermore, it also must be 'wrongful' and 'threatened' force.
Microsoft does not belong in this category.


In the event you dislike the court definition:
The employer that 'threatens' an employee to shape up his work or he's fired seems to belong under this category. You've included free choice in that definition. Obviously the employee doesn't have free choice to stay at that job. You argued that the employee has free choice to get another job. Oh if life we're so simple. It is feasible, and indeed common, that this man will take many months to find a new job (if he does at all) that may not even pay the same wage.

I would then argue that computer vendors could quite easily do the same with Microsoft, and go talk to Apple (non x86) or Linux distros. You argued this would hurt them financially, but so would our man who just go fired.


Other examples: Grocery stores will not shelve brand name cookies unless these cookie producers also agree to produce the Grocery-store's house brand as well, much to the detriment of their free choice and profits.
Ford dealers are not allowed to sell Toyota cars. Franchisees must obey the rules of franchisors.
Furniture stores (ie. The Brick) push exclusivity agreements on furniture producers restricting their choice of retailer.

...and, He knows you believe you understand what you think he said, but he's not sure you realize what you heard is not what he meant.

I do not think I've misinterrupted anything he's said too grossly (with the exception of his home-brewed definition of extortion). Ahh, you're not going to contribute anything useful to this discussion are you?

Nah. Looks like Miriam Webster and U.S. Federal Statute have contributed enough usefulness to this ..uhhh .... oh yeah, .. discussion.

I did not bring up the original claim of 'extortion', I find it as preposterous as you do. Normally I would cursorily dismiss these accusations but that was the main argument presented by mike, and so I rebutted. The only truly meaningful definition would have to be US statute, which seems to have sufficed.
I did not use Webster as it has no legal precedent.

If any of this annoys you by all means ignore this thread. It'd be far more constructive than your attempts to come off comical yet enigmatic.

YIPES! LOL I am quite "amused" rather than "annoyed". (ô¿~)



*senses tension*

Actually yes that is all you have to do, if there is no exe it wont work. You just have to know where there exe is. Now of course just deleting this file will leave behind other libraries, but the same goes for WMP9 also.

No it's not. The point is that you can do it and avoid vendor lock-in, such as the bundling of a media player. Just because it's part of a default install doesn't cut it with me I'm affraid. The point is that you don't have to install it at all, it's easily removed and if there isn't a distro out there that you like then you can build your own that you do like. Of course that requires a lot of skills, but it is a valid option.

Getting rid of just the binary is easy, though considering that an "uninstall" is silly:

code:
% /bin/rm `which xmms`

Uninstalling a package is also easy, at least in Debian GNU/Linux:

code:
% dpkg --purge xmms

With the advent of modern package management systems like aptitude and synaptic, interdependencies between packages are handled automatically as well.

saw on the news this morning, that the fine is expected to be 200 mio € (244 mio USD)

I find it ironic that we are basically using the US legal system in our discussion while Microsoft is being sued by the EU.

You know, this actually is a pretty good discussion......

Your example with the employer and employee is useless here. The employee works for the employer and this is a different kind of issue. although the example is pretty good;).

I have to go,. i am typing here at school. can you find a EU term for extortion.....?