On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Andy Sy wrote:
Companies are free to 'extend' at their own risk - that's known as innovation
We don't buy that M$ marketing line and neither did the courts. Much of what M$ calls "innovation" is plain monopolistic practice. And so M$ DID get penalized, and rightly so.
To be honest, I myself don't believe that M$' extensions are being done with innovation as the primary reason. However, I was talking about companies in general being free to extend protocols and standards. I doubt you will argue that they aren't free to do so, so the question here is when does extension of standards become anti-competitive?
For those who are famliar with the details of the rulings, did a judge ever rule that MS' 'embrace and extend' tactics per se were anti-competitive and if so how exactly did they distinguish MS' extend tactics from those of other companies' such that the way MS did was considered anti-competitive?
Obviously the courts have ruled that MS did engage in anti-competitive practices, but I believe neither bundling nor 'embrace and extend' were considered part of those.
Something to think about...
-- reply-to: a n d y @ n e t f x p h . c o m -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
