Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Adobe-Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit?

__/ [ Tom Shelton ] on Friday 02 June 2006 19:50 \__

> 
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Tom Shelton ] on Friday 02 June 2006 19:20 \__
>>
>> >
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Friday 02 June 2006 18:03 \__
>> >>
>> >> > On Friday 02 June 2006 17:41 Tom Shelton wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> >>> Microsoft expects Adobe to file antitrust suit: WSJ
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >> >>> | Microsoft Corp. said it expected Adobe Systems Inc. to file an
>> >> >>> | antitrust suit in Europe after talks to use Adobe's technology
>> >> >>> | broke down this week, according to the Wall Street Journal.
>> >> >>> `----
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>        
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060602/tc_nm/microsoft_adobe_dc
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Office attempts to 'Netscape' PDF creation tools. Google to follow
>> >> >>> suit?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Office attempts to add a feature the OO has...  Export to pdf.  What
>> >> >> bunch of crap.  When is adobe going to contact the OpenOffice people
>> >> >> and ask them to remove the feature or charge for it?  What's fair is
>> >> >> fair, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah - do we catch a hint here of what happens when one uses (or tries
>> >> > to use) formats which are not completely open?
>> >> > This situation is, I suspect, very similar to the one which I and
>> >> > others worry about - what could/might occur should people implement
>> >> > Microsoft's
>> >> > latest format.  The fear is that MS will/would be able to
>> >> > pick-and-choose the people who could use it.....
>> >>
>> >> Interesting  insight. However, if it ever became an ISO standard (which
>> >> it
>> >> can't/won't),  I suspect that all would have to honour it. It would be
>> >> the
>> >> possession  of nobody. Extensions should then be made restrictive as 
>> >> well (and openly shared).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why can't/won't it become an ISO standard?  It can and likely will.  At
>> > best, you might be able to argue that it will be a standard no one will
>> > use.
>>
>> Professionals have already predicted that the XML-based standard
>> application will be dismissed.
> 
> On what basis?


Read on.


>> Two standards achieving the same thing is always a bad.
> 
> Maby, but it wouldn't be the first time that there are competing
> standards.  AFIK, having a similar standard is not a reason for
> rejection.


It never *helps*.

 
>> Moreover, it is based on an _existing_ implementation of just _one_
>> vendor. It takes (at least) two to tango.
> 
> If that is true, and I haven't checked, there are ways around it...
> I'm sure they can always do like they did with .NET and pay someone to
> come up with an alternate implementation (Rotor).  AFIK, that
> implementation was done by Correl - funded by MS.


More subversion of the legal system. Mono was probably late to join the party
("party pooper" is what it was) after this subversion and availability as
'standard', which is heavily criticised by the way...

Best wishes,

Roy

-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand"
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  7:50pm  up 36 days  2:22,  10 users,  load average: 2.18, 2.39, 2.19
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index