Dodaj do ulubionych

komuchy z brukseli rozkulaczaja microsoft !

17.09.07, 19:43
za nasze pieniadze i "dla naszego dobra" :( za kogo wezma sie potem?? za
apple'a bo zachowuje wylacznasc itunes na ipoda??
Obserwuj wątek
      • s_berkowicz Re: a co to jest <nieprawny monopol> 17.09.07, 19:54
        bolszewiku?? efekt radosnej tworczosci i wymysl biurew ! jak ustala ze
        monopolista zaczyna sie juz od 10% udzialu w rynku to tez bedziesz pitolil o
        przestrzeganiu "prawa" ??
        jak konsumentom dolaczany media player pasuje i kupuja windowsy przez co pozycja
        microsoftu jest taka a nie inna to w czym problem?? :(
        • douglasmclloyd Re: a co to jest <nieprawny monopol> 17.09.07, 19:56
          s_berkowicz napisał:

          > bolszewiku?? efekt radosnej tworczosci i wymysl biurew ! jak ustala ze
          > monopolista zaczyna sie juz od 10% udzialu w rynku to tez bedziesz pitolil o
          > przestrzeganiu "prawa" ??
          > jak konsumentom dolaczany media player pasuje i kupuja windowsy przez co pozycj
          > a
          > microsoftu jest taka a nie inna to w czym problem?? :(

          Nierozpakowany Windows Vista Business, który otrzymałem za darmo od Microsoftu,
          oddam w dobre ręce.
    • s_berkowicz Re: komuchy z brukseli rozkulaczaja microsoft ! :( 18.09.07, 11:39
      <<The European Union (EU) regulators and the EU Court of First Instance are a
      bunch of idiots in their rulings on Microsoft Corporation (ticker symbol MSFT).

      They show clearly that they stand foursquare against (a) freedom, (b) the
      hapless consumer who is being harmed by their rulings, and (c) the truth, which
      is also a casualty. They know nothing. They say nothing that makes any sense.

      The judgment handed down this week was for the case on appeal from 2004. It
      upheld most of the earlier rulings. The case will probably be appealed again. At
      present, the AP article informs us that the judgment tells Microsoft "to share
      communications code with rivals, sell a copy of Windows without Media Player and
      pay a $613 million fine..."

      The pretext for these actions is that Microsoft is a monopoly that is harming
      both its rivals and its customers. The whole case is so idiotic that it
      challenges belief in even a small degree of rationality among the EU regulators
      and officials responsible. The case demonstrates the total ineptitude of
      government’s benighted attempts to regulate markets in the name of competition.

      In the 2004 ruling, the issue was the Microsoft Media Player which is bundled
      with Windows XP or is a free add-on. Two alternatives are Real Network’s player
      and Apple’s Quicktime, which can easily be downloaded for free. Why can’t the
      consumer decide among these, or use one or more of them if he sees fit? Why must
      the customers of Microsoft be prevented from buying what Microsoft offers them
      as a package?

      Does Microsoft not own what it produces? Why must it turn code over to rivals?
      Isn’t it bad enough that producers have to give up a large share of their income
      to strangers? Now a company must directly work for its rivals! By all means,
      ratchet up the degree of insulting slavery that one must endure.

      At the time of the first ruling, one article reported: "Analysts say by forcing
      Microsoft to offer a version of Windows XP without Media Player, consumers could
      pay higher costs." This is true. How could it not be true? Windows with Media
      Player was the product that most consumers preferred. By taking away that
      package as an option, they could only be made worse off. A computer consultant
      pointed out that retailers would have to allocate twice as much space to selling
      the two pieces: "If it were to be obliged to offer versions both with and
      without Media Player, then that would mean we would probably have double the
      number of consumer PC configuration in our shops." Space costs money.
      Furthermore, more time and effort are required among consumers to buy two pieces
      and install them.

      A grinning EU Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, said at the time: "Today's
      decision restores the conditions for fair competition in the markets concerned
      and establishes clear principles for the future conduct of a company with such a
      strong dominant position." In these few words, Mr. Monti established his
      credentials as the resident EU idiot-in-charge. Competition is achieved by open
      markets in which anyone can enter and compete and in which the state creates no
      unfair advantage or handicap. There is no such thing as "fair competition" other
      than the market being open, and no anti-trust decisions are needed to keep
      markets open. All that is needed is that property be protected, which is the
      opposite of the decision that Mr. Monti applauded.

      But his stupidity is now matched by both the court’s and his replacement, Neelie
      Kroes. Showing her grit and steely determination, she said: "I will not tolerate
      continued noncompliance." Give ’em hell, Neelie. European consumers should be
      thankful to have such a staunch protectress on their side.

      She added: "The court has confirmed the Commission’s view that consumers are
      suffering at the hands of Microsoft." How is Microsoft inflicting this
      punishment? Does it force anyone to buy its bundled product? Does it forcibly
      prevent anyone from using Quicktime? But Ms. Commissioner, is it not true that
      the EU directly is punishing the consumer by messing around with Microsoft? Who
      will bear the humongous legal fees and fines, at least in part, if not the
      consumer? Who will lose out from the chill on future innovation if not the
      consumer? And isn’t the EU directly responsible for all of this harm?

      What utter hypocrisy and stupidity are on parade here.

      Are we supposed to pity Microsoft’s rivals? Are we supposed to reward their
      incompetence? The court opined that selling media software with Windows had
      damaged rivals. If it was a successful product, what else could we expect but
      that rivals should be damaged? It is a good sign that they have been damaged. It
      means that customers were benefited. The rivals do not own the customers. They
      cannot make them buy their products, not unless the EU intervenes and tries to
      raise Microsoft’s costs.

      This, then, is what fair competition actually means. It means penalizing the
      good guys so that the bad guys can stay in the game. Now this is done in golf to
      some extent, in horse racing, and in drafting players in some sports, presumably
      in a voluntary manner for reasons of enhancing the enjoyment of the games, but
      market competition is not a sports league or a sporting contest. It is a case of
      consumers saying "aye" or "nay" to products. They have the say. And there is
      certainly not going to be market competition with a bunch of regulators
      instituting idiotic lawsuits that hamstring companies and, nevertheless, take
      decades to adjudicate. And, of course, we can hardly expect EU courts to rule
      against EU commissions routinely any more than we can expect the U.S. Supreme
      Court to diminish the powers of the national government of the U.S.

      "The mood at EU headquarters was one of elation and the court's decision was
      hailed as a big victory for the EU's competition policy and for consumer
      rights." I can believe it about the mood. I can well imagine a slew of EU
      lawyers and bureaucrats, narrowly focused on beating Microsoft, personally
      involved and committed over several years, who have found vindication in their
      ill-chosen life’s work. Their dedication and toil have paid off. They have a
      victory for their power, that is, their "competition policy." Now they can find
      other industries to meddle in. They can wreck other markets.

      They can congratulate themselves with the illusion that this is a victory for
      "consumer rights" when it is a defeat for European consumers, another nail in
      the coffin that is burying competition in European markets and foreclosing the
      freedom of consumer choice. Perhaps the European consumer will be responsive to
      pirated versions of what their regulators tell them they may not buy because
      they are being damaged by buying them.

      Very few products are not bundles of characteristics. Dental floss is a spool of
      thread, but the packages vary from round to rectangular. Some shaving cream cans
      have bottoms that rust and stain, while others have plastic rims. Automobiles
      are bundled with batteries, tires, and windshield wipers. Why is a thing like a
      media player any different?

      Obviously, it is big bad Microsoft that is the issue. Why is it the issue?
      Because it is a convenient target with a large market share. The consumer and
      rivals are not the issue, all the rhetoric notwithstanding. EU regulators look
      around for ways to enhance their positions, power, and prestige. They are
      financed by tax dollars and can afford to take on cases that no one else would
      go near, including Microsoft’s rivals. The potential payoff to the regulatory
      agency is very large. The more elated they are, the more sure we can be that the
      consumer has had little to do with anti-trust policy except providing a
      necessary ingredient in making an anti-trust case.

      The EU case against Microsoft shows us government

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka