__/ [ William Poaster ] on Thursday 13 July 2006 13:40 \__
> It was on Thursday 13 July 2006 6:58 am, that Roy Schestowitz apparently
> said:
>
>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 12 July 2006 22:10 \__
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> __/ [ Linonut ] on Wednesday 12 July 2006 12:17 \__
>>>>
>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx belched out
>>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IP/04/382). That Decision found that Microsoft had abused its dominant
>>>>>> position under Article 82 EC, and required Microsoft to disclose
>>>>>> complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow
>>>>>> non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with
>>>>>> Windows PCs and servers. Today's Decision, adopted under Article
>>>>>> 24(2) of Regulation 1/2003, finds that Microsoft has not fulfilled
>>>>>> this obligation. Should Microsoft continue to fail to comply, the
>>>>>> Decision also increases the amount of the daily penalty payment to
>>>>>> which Microsoft could be subject to euro3 million per day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like, how will they collect?
>>>>
>>>> No software coupons, please. No purses with lipstick, either. I am more
>>>> curious about how the money is returned, divided, distributed, and/or
>>>> invested (among industry, as well as EU nations). Maybe they should use
>>>> the money to <sarcasm>sponsor some counter-Microsoft Munchkins
>>>> or</sarcasm> compensate companies that were affected. But how???
>>>> Additionally, without eventual compliance, it's a toothless tiger
>>>> penalty.
>>>
>>> It sends an important signal to MS and everyone else, I think, but as
>>> you say, the key thing is actually getting the hard cash from MS. You
>>> can't redistribute the cash, it must go into EU coffers - anything else
>>> would look too much like corruption, be that the intention on not.
>>>
>>> Were I the commissioner, I would simply continue to increase the daily
>>> fine, perhaps 1million per day every week, until MS decided that it be
>>> too expensive, and chose to comply with the requirement instead. I do
>>> harbour the suspicion that without employing the samba team, MS will
>>> find it very difficult to comply, as I suspect that they lack the
>>> technical capability.
>>
>> If the priority is to get them to comply (which it is!), don't even
>> increase it linearly. First month - 3m per day; second month: 6m per day;
>> third month: 12m; forth: 24m...
>>
>> At some stage, given enough time, they will comply or file for bankruptcy
>> (or simply retract all business from the EU).
>
> Would the EU not be able to seize assets in lieu of unpaid fines?
What assets? It's all about code. Apart from headquarters around the world,
the company has got nothing but intellect, which it claims is its property.
It often seems as though Microsoft employs an army of lawyers and marketeers
rather than good coders.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | $> apt-get -not windows
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 753508k used, 282676k free, 83476k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
