Microsoft fined $1.35 Billion.
"I hope that today's decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft's record of non-compliance
Posted on 2008-02-27 09:40:18 by drhowarddrfine
~1 Billion USD? They'll make that much in a month. No biggie  ;)
Posted on 2008-02-27 16:44:14 by XCHG
You're right.  It is about one month to make it back but that's one month's profit, not sales.  Imagine losing one month of your income after taxes.
Posted on 2008-02-28 07:36:42 by drhowarddrfine
Microsoft net income is ~14 Billion USD which is more than a billion a month. As I said, Microsoft has many people around the world who are completely against their strategies and policies but people should just zip it and accept that Microsoft is (one of) the biggest companies in the word, they have the money and power and so they can do (almost) whatever they want as far as the industry is concerned. I love Microsoft and I have openly talked about this before. They make money AND they let you make money. They don't surround themselves with a thousands of programmers who have no life and "contribute" to the creation of their Operating Systems just to have 0.67% of the market like Linux does.

You just have to accept the fact that nobody can stop Microsoft from being who they are and what they do. I mean enough with this thing already.
Posted on 2008-02-29 02:35:29 by XCHG
My impression of Vista is that I'll be returning to that 0.67 % (where'd you get that figure from?) and that XP will be the last microsoft product I ever use.
And I don't even like penguins.

Currently Linux has a global market share of 2.8 percent on the desktop. It has a global market share on the server of 28.3%


Posted on 2008-02-29 03:04:05 by Homer

they have the money and power and so they can do (almost) whatever they want as far as the industry is concerned.
And that's the problem.  Too much power in the hands of one company that will dictate what works and what doesn't to their advantage.
They don't surround themselves with a thousands of programmers who have no life and "contribute" to the creation of their Operating Systems just to have 0.67% of the market like Linux does.
No one has to "contribute" to Linux but you just ask those thousands of programmers what kind of life they have working with the hours they work for MS. 

btw, Linux software is frequently contributed to by large corporations, such as Yahoo, Google and IBM.  They have paid staff who work on this, frequently full time.  Yahoo is virtually all FreeBSD.  Google is virtually all Linux.  Homer shows Linux has around 28% of the server market.  I don't recall the exact numbers but ALL servers on the net are close to 80% open source (Windows about 23%) but Fortune 500 companies are around 50% Windows.  Or was it 50% of all servers (I don't think so).

You just have to accept the fact that nobody can stop Microsoft from being who they are and what they do. I mean enough with this thing already.
Apparently the EU has stopped Microsoft as they, twice, have changed their ways in the EU.  Although the US Justice Department, along with several states, sued them over anti-trust issues, too, they pussied out and didn't carry through.

In the meantime, CNET shows an internal memo stating people buy computers, not operating systems, and they are very concerned about this.  More stories are showing up on the web stating "Microsoft doesn't matter anymore". 

Watch this space.  The web is the OS. 
Posted on 2008-02-29 07:49:29 by drhowarddrfine
Coincidentally, in CNET today:
Open Source developers command a 30-40 percent salary premium

Wow, I'm on a roll here.  Again published today:
Open source gains business credibility
Posted on 2008-02-29 08:27:08 by drhowarddrfine
I just really don't understand the whole theory behind OSS. I mean creating a software is like building a construction. You work on it hard with many people from scratch sometimes and then you sell it. Why aren't all of us concerned about making this industry open source? For example, I see a house which is being constructed and I just JUMP right in and start working on the software and when I finish my work, tired and exhausted, they tell me "Okay thanks for your contribution. Now go home. Good boy". I mean don't tell me that if all operating systems and software were open source things would be better than what they are right now. I mean programming and software development as it is right now is just known because people work on data to change it to information and then process the information to turn it to knowledge. They will then use the knowledge to write programs and they spend their lives on it just to make a living out of it. Ironically, all my software and libraries are out there for free and most of them are open-source. But the truth is if I really work hard on something and come up with a good output, I will definitely not expose the source code to the public. Maybe I'm different but I know I'm not the only one who thinks like that and I believe that I owe my success to Microsoft that made me think that software is valuable just like everything else and valuable things aren't supposed to be given for free just like charity for eternity.
Posted on 2008-02-29 09:39:33 by XCHG
Wonder what the EU does with all the money they steal from Microosft?

Being fined for creating something and then charging a premium for others to interface with it. The EU Competition Commission is gold digging here. If they wanted to do something useful they'd fine a few oil companies for financially exploiting a natural resource, not Microsoft for innovating (or at least rehashing Apple innovations) and charging for it.

OSS essentially bootlegs innovative software.
MS Office -> Open Office
DB2/Oracle/MSSQL Server -> MySQL
Photoship -> GIMP
Unix/MacOS -> Linux
If you have an amazing/original software idea the second you sell it for a profit; an open source project/emulation will spring up. Everyone likes a free alternative, so complaints are minimal.

Just had to obsessive compulsively correct the lopsidedness of this thread.

Posted on 2008-02-29 14:20:31 by r22

Wonder what the EU does with all the money they steal from Microosft?
The same thing happens to every monopoly.  They either get fined or broken up (ATT into all the baby Bells for example).  At one time it was thought the Justice Department would break up Microsoft.  This is nothing new. 

Being fined for creating something and then charging a premium for others to interface with it.
That was never the issue.  The issue is they have a monopoly on the desktop and other businesses are shut out.  The EU gave terms to Microsoft so they could avoid paying any fine or being shut out of Europe.  Monopolies are illegal in most countries and shutting out other companies or charging high rates will always get you in trouble. 

OSS essentially bootlegs innovative software.
MS Office -> Open Office
DB2/Oracle/MSSQL Server -> MySQL
Photoship -> GIMP
Unix/MacOS -> Linux
There were several graphical editors out before Office.  Photoshop got its ideas from Industrial Light and Magic and Pixar's tools.  Linux came from ideas in Minix which was created as a teaching tool, not a commercial venture.  db2/oracle/mssql came from other sources and about the same time mysql came out around 1995.

You'll find that many commercial projects came from open source projects years ago.  But you can't get Photoshop on Unix/Linux so someone went out and made one.  Office only works on Windows so someone had to make one for every other OS.  Internet Explorer came from the University of Illinois.  It doesn't run on anything but Windows so someone went out and made some.

So it works both ways.
Posted on 2008-02-29 21:06:18 by drhowarddrfine
Office only works on Windows so someone had to make one for every other OS.
Also works on macs :)
Posted on 2008-03-01 22:36:22 by f0dder
The monopoly behind all these strategies is not without a reason. Again I'll give you an example. Let's say I am a basketball player who has been playing basketball for 30 years and you are my competitor who has only been playing for a year. Then I beat you in a game and you start crying telling others "He doesn't let me play. Mama he doesn't let me play" Well if you want me to let you play, go and learn how to play basketball first, build up your energy and then compete with me. I think Microsoft has earned their success and they have the brains, money and power to push forward. I really hope they will succeed even more and I know they will  ;)
Posted on 2008-03-02 05:48:17 by XCHG
Your analogy is wrong.  It's not that the player won't let you play basketball.  You can do that anywhere.  The problem is he owns almost all the basketball courts and he won't let you play on them, or charges you a very high price to do so.  That's the problem.
Posted on 2008-03-02 08:39:13 by drhowarddrfine

Your analogy is wrong.  It's not that the player won't let you play basketball.  You can do that anywhere.  The problem is he owns almost all the basketball courts and he won't let you play on them, or charges you a very high price to do so.  That's the problem.


I do agree with what you are saying of course. I hadn't thought about it that way. I would however say that Microsoft has worked so hard to own the "basketball courts". If anybody needs to play basketball, they can go and make their own basketball courts.
Posted on 2008-03-02 18:24:20 by XCHG