On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:20 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > anyone to explain about the information's meaning? > > Microsoft has a dominant position in the desktop operating systems market. > In the EU, dominant positions are legal, but you are not allowed to use a > dominant position in one market to influence another market. > > Microsoft configured their desktop operating systems to use a secret > communication protocol, and they configured their server operating systems > to also use this secret protocol. > > This meant that Microsoft's server operating systems had an advantage over > everyone else's server operating systems - because everyone else didn't know > the secret protocol. > > (This would be ok if MS didn't have a dominant position in the desktop > market, but it's not ok when they do have a dominant position.) > > So, when people were buying server software, they were buying Micrsoft's > server software because it was the only one that could use all the features > of the secret protocol. This is bad for the market because competing > products are being ignored and consumers are not able to choose the best. > > So, in 2004, the European Commission told Microsoft that the only way to > undo the harm, to fix the market, was to publish this secret protocol. > > FSFE stepped in and argued that if Microsoft has to publish the protocol, > free software developers must be able to use it. (So, no patents, no > licensing fees, no non-disclosure agreements, etc.) FSFE also argued that > Samba is the only real competitor to Microsoft's server software, so Samba > must be able to use the published information. > > The European Commission agreed. > > Then Microsoft ignored the ruling, then they delayed, then they published > some useless information, and then they appealed to the Court of First > Instance. > > On Monday, the Court of First Instance rejected the appeal and confirmed > that the European Commission's ruling was correct. > > So now Microsoft must publish the secret protocol. (But it won't happen > immediately, they will continue to delay, but the fines will continue to > increase.) > > Microsoft can appeal one more time, but they can only appeal the legality of > the case, they cannot appeal the facts or the substance. > Actually it sounds like that Microsoft is bad. But there is no Microsoft's opinion, so I can't agree to your opinion at all.
Byung-Hee _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
