Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News IT

Microsoft Won't Appeal EU Ruling 188

Posted by Hemos from the big-cases dept.
Ec|ipse writes "Microsoft has decided not to appeal the European court order to implement antitrust sanctions, Instead, Microsoft hopes to win their main appeal that they (Microsoft) had abused their software dominance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Won't Appeal EU Ruling More

Microsoft Won't Appeal EU Ruling

Comments Filter:

  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by WillerZ ( 814133 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @12:58PM (#11457676) Homepage
    Probably realised the lawyers would cost more than the fines.
    • Shouldn't it read: Microsoft hopes to win their main appeal that they (Microsoft) had *not* abused their software dominance.

      Either that or: Microsoft hopes to win their main appeal against the ruling that they (Microsoft) had abused their software dominance.
      • From the context of the sentence, it could only logically be the latter. The wording certainly was screwed up though.

    • Re:Heh (Score:3, Funny)

      by PopeAlien ( 164869 )
      ..or its much simpler to simply buy the EU and bundle free copies of Euro-Clippy with all products to appease the grumpy naysayers that want 'competition' instead of 'innovation'. Hey look! a paperclip! and its talking to me!
      • But you see, Competition stems Innovation.

        For example, prior to Firefox's release and initial succes. Microsoft was going to use a patched version of IE 6 in longhorn. After firefox they finally decided on making an IE 7.

        I just hope this time it can be removed.

        • Re:Heh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ischorr ( 657205 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:55PM (#11458488)
          What makes you think that IE 7 won't simply be a "patched version of IE 6"?

          I don't doubt that regardless of Firefox's emergence as a hotshot browser, Microsoft would not have been providing a browser in Longhorn with particularly new or innovative functionality, but it'd be odd for the marketing droids to allow IE to retain the "IE 6" moniker. Instead, I'd expect it to be named "IE NG" (next-generation) or something similar, after they'd revamped it with an Avalon interface (or something)?

          • They might add a few more "security" warnings, internet zones, even more craptastic cookie management informing you with a big, undisableable "Ok" that a cookie has been blocked. Oh, with a "don't show me this warning again" for a per cookie basis just for the kicks of it.

            All useless features that does make the browser appear safer, better and whatever, but still doesn't adress any of the many fundamental flaws or exploits.

            And whatever it does, it will regularly inform you that you are surfing "safer

    • Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:06PM (#11457782)
      As if Microsoft cares. They're happy to pay lawyer's fees if it saves them face. I think they must've recognized that in some way, they simply would not win and that their money is better-spent on some different campaign. Expect them to publicly play "oppressed victim of the EU" soon.

      • Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

        by truthsearch ( 249536 )
        "...if it saves them face"

        No, if it saves them market share. It should be pretty obvious by now they don't care what you think of them, as long as you continue to "need" their software and no markets are closed off to them. They fight tooth and nail when a market is open to more competition for them or if they have to limit the bundling of their software. But patent and monopoly abuse cases are just settled, saving them money.

        • Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 )
          No, if it saves them market share.

          More to the point, it costs them less to pay legal fees and fines than it would cost them to "play fair." I don't think any legal system moves fast enough to make the cost of non-compliance more expensive to Microsoft than the cost of compliance; hence, they'll continue to play these legal games.

      • Their lawyers may also have had difficulty finding grounds for appeal which didn't attack the original ruling. I would't read much into this.

      • Re:Heh (Score:3, Funny)

        by flyingsquid ( 813711 )
        they simply would not win and that their money is better-spent on some different campaign.

        Like maybe a military campaign? I can almost picture Gates rubbing his hands together in Redmond and going, "Sure, I'll let you win this round, Europe" before launching his full-scale invasion of Europe.

        Of course, the winter assault on Moscow will be his undoing.

      • Perhaps they realized that at this point everyone knows they are slime it hasn't hurt their profit margins a bit. Spending money on lawyers to defend percieved honor that they don't have would hurt their profit margins however.
      • By playing ball with the EU and paying their
        fine, Microsoft improves their image in Europe,
        making way for the REAL END-RUN around F/OSS.
        MSFT will spread enough "love" around the EU MPs
        to make EU software patents happen, at which
        point they can tie all F/OSS development up
        in lawsuits. MSFT is just spending their "love"
        wisely.
    • A company as big as Microsoft almost certainly has staff attorneys, likely getting paid whether they are actually doing anything or not. In that sense, it's almost more cost-effective to go ahead and appeal; you stand some chance of winning while paying the same amount instead of 0% by not trying.

    • Re:Heh (Score:2, Funny)

      by edxwelch ( 600979 )
      Plus, they already wasted enough money trying to buy off the CCIA $10M and Novell
  • So they couldnt get internet explorer, they targeted media player. Microsoft sure has been playing it smart, I want a stripped down version without WMP!
    • I want one to be available, not saying I would use it however. Everyone knows debian is the best. ;) It would be one step closer to 'domination.'

    • Re:Why media player? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What I want is to be able to remove Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express.

      These three are just security holes.

      • Re:Why media player? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:07PM (#11459630) Journal
        What I want is to be able to remove Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express.

        These three are just security holes.

        They are just three SYMPTOMS of one security hole and that security hole is called ActiveX. If Microsoft was REAL serious about security in Longhorn, ActiveX would be rewritten with security in mind. Anything that is "ActiveX aware" can reformat your hard drive and more. These things include MS Office, IE, Outlook Express, Outlook, WMP, and the list goes on. COM/OLE objects are great but having a web site be able to run/install a com object onto a machine from IE is INSANE!!!! Somebody at Microsoft should have asked "what is to stop someone from abusing this technology?" and then decided not to implement it because they did not have a good answer to that question. If it was not for the lack of security in ActiveX technologies, MS security would not be so abismally shoddy.

        • Re:Why media player? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
          Active X is only one of the security holes. Most of the recent security problems with IE, Outlook, MS in general have nothing to do with Active X. Heck, even SP 2, which disables Active X by default, still leaves the PC prone to several buffer overflow attacks and more.
    • It's more or less the same story as Internet Explorer. In the case of IE, Microsoft's goal was to pervert the HTML standard to the point where HTML written for IE wouldn't render in other browsers. This way they could hijack the standard, and the browser marketshare at the same time. This failed, but they came close and there are still some annoying sites that are tested to IE's broken rendering engine, and give the other browsers trouble.

      With WMP, they aren't screwing with open formats, just pushing th

  • It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:01PM (#11457713) Homepage
    That nothing was really done to a company that was found guilty of abusing its monopoly power [usdoj.gov]

    Microsoft are criminals. Nobody should be doing business with them.

    • By that measure, IBM are also criminals, yet a lot of people on this forum seem to hold them up as bastions of all that is good. MS was found guilty of abusing its manopoly, but this case was just money grabbing on the part of the EU (and I live in the EU) - an OS is expected to be able to do certain things out of the box, and I have no issues with MS bundling MediaPlayer to fulfil those expectations.

      But then, what do I care anymore, I just moved to the Mac.
      • All your processor are belong to us.

        Love, Big Blue.

      • Re:It's a shame (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:04PM (#11458630) Homepage Journal
        IBM got bitch slapped for their abuses of their monopoly status. One of the reasons they couldn't market OS/2 effectively was because they were being so careful not to violate the terms of their agreement with the DOJ. Among other things, they were not allowed to announce products or features of products prior to the release of the product. If Microsoft were to be put under the restrictions that IBM was, we wouldn't hear anything out of them for the next two decades, because all of their current advertising methods would be in violation of the agreement.

        IBM is no longer the monopolist it once was, in large part because of the punishment they suffered for abusing their position. I don't think you could say the same of Microsoft. And I'm sure that Bill can accumulate the amount of the fine by simply going through the couches at his mansion.

        We could take a page from their marketing department though. Linus should announce a huge list of features for the 2.7/2.8 kernel series. If they don't all make it in, he can just announce that they've just been "delayed" until the "Linux Longhorn" release in 2020. Heh heh heh...

      • The difference being, of course, that IBM paid for it. There has yet been no justice for what Microsoft has done.

  • MicroSoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by kerby74 ( 798328 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:01PM (#11457716)
    But.... Longhorn will fix all this, we promise.

  • Nah, most probably (Score:5, Funny)

    by DJPaddy ( 738793 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:01PM (#11457720) Homepage
    ...They are afraid that some of the people in court might be reading slashdot, and saw yesterday's Ballmer ad, so they decided to abandon the case until this is forgotten. After all nobody wants to be laughed by a federal judge.
    • I know it was funny, but to be fair (and for the sake of informing) it wasn't really an ad. It was an internal company joke. I imagine if you work for a giant like Microsoft, it helps morale to see your bosses not taking themselves quite so seriously once in a while.
      • Speaking for myself I prefer to see my bosses doing their best to run the company in such a way that they increase my wages, don't lose me my job and manage to business to sensible long term goals.

        Anything which isn't directly related to doing that e.g. writing pointless circulars announcing great new initiative #18472, spending time telling us all how it great it is to cruise around in the company yacht and telling us our wages will be frozen for year because of a lack of money ( which curiosily doesn't a

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Angry Mick ( 632931 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:02PM (#11457728) Homepage

    Microsoft will accept the penalty incurred under the anti-trust ruling, but will still appeal the foundation ruling in general?

    I'm glad IANAL.

    • I havent RTFA, of course, but it seems to me that they're shooting to have the bigger case overturned. Why pay the court costs to fight 2 battles, when you can just fight one? If they get the decision overturned, then the penalties will cease to be. Saves time and money for them.

  • WTF? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
    Microsoft has decided not to appeal the European court order to implement antitrust sanctions, Instead, Microsoft hopes to win their main appeal that they (Microsoft) had abused their software dominance."

    Damn, good sportsmanship, of all the low-down-sneaky tactics. Without Microsoft's Euro antics what are we supposed to discuss!!! Gotta dig for more dirt on other things, maybe run that article about Will Eisner dying or something, man, this really cuts into /. material...

  • So, what issues are they not appealing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Onimaru ( 773331 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:03PM (#11457744)

    I'm no expert in the EU legal system, so I could be out to lunch here, but I don't think an appeal is just another chance to duke it out. Usually there have to be specific issues preserved and reopened on appeal, and I can't think of what those issues would be in such a decision. Does anyone know what their grounds for appeal would have been? The law student in me is deathly curious.

  • ... don't you mean their appeal that they hadn't abused the services? Are they appealing the decision that they had, or is their appeal actually that they had abused the services?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:03PM (#11457754)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • *eyebrow raising* (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TechnologyX ( 743745 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:06PM (#11457781) Journal
    Seems like they might have something up their sleeve.

    It would be nice to see them have to strip WMP and IE out of Windows, or at least preload Firefox and Opera on Windows along with IE. My friend just recently was ranting about "WHY in GODS NAME do I need to have Windows Media Player EMBEDDED into my server??"*

    *Disclaimer: I've never used any Windows based servers, and I haven't used Windows period since 1999, so I don't know if you can pull WMP out or anything.

    • Re:*eyebrow raising* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:22PM (#11457992) Homepage Journal
      Its called code reuse. Not done well, mind you, but MANY MANY linux distributions have the EXACT same problem.

      Take WMP for instance. It is really just a front end to the Windows Media API. Funny thing is, to install this arguably essential component of windows, Media PLayer comes with the package. They also do this for MAPI... thats why you get Outlook Express.

      In a nutshell, Windows started out as a bunch of tech demos for the underlying technology. Now Microsoft is developing the "Proof of concept" mini-apps into full fledged applications.

      P.S. Before the grammar nzi's strike, I do know that my spelling and grammar have a lot to be desired.
      • I do know that my spelling and grammar have a lot to be desired.

        You mean that your spelling and grammar leave a lot to be desired.

        *duck*

      • Great Idea Except... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by EXTomar ( 78739 )
        Most of the mini-apps aren't applicable in the enterprise. If you need a cluster DB setup, why do you need the Windows Media API let alone the client bits installed on the machine? It simply isn't applicable and worse it is unremovable.

        But that is an extreme case. In a more practical setup, why does Microsoft get the say on installing any software like WMP on my grandmother's machine? As you noted, because the way Microsoft has developed the technology installing one piece of technology to solve a prob
        • That's the real issue here. What's moral? What's legal?

          The crux is whether you consider MS to be a monopoly with no alternatives.

          If you say "Yes, there is no alternative", then morally, and legally, Microsoft can't behave the way that they do. Their OS is also the people's OS, and by making the OS unfair, it harms the people, so laws apply for the protection of the people.

          If you say, "No, there is no alternative", then morally, and legally, MS can do whatever they want. It's their OS, if they install
      • Why on earth would any portion of Windows Media be an "essential component" of a server?

      • Its called code reuse. Not done well, mind you, but MANY MANY linux distributions have the EXACT same problem.

        Like what ?

        - On my desktop machine I mostly use SuSE.
        Multimedia userinterface / multimedia handling libraries / rest of system are completly independent.
        You're not forced to install Xine's userinterface, you can only install Xine's libraries if you like (and if fact the default "Desktop"-profile installation does it, and use another UI : Kaffeine).

        - You can even install only base system without

      • > P.S. Before the grammar nzi's strike

        It's "grammar Nazis", not "grammar nzi's."
    • "WHY in GODS NAME do I need to have Windows Media Player EMBEDDED into my server??"

      Clippy: "It looks like SQL Server is dying and NTFS is corrupting as we speak. Would you like to watch a video to see how to press ctrl+alt+del and pray to God that your machine can still boot?"
    • I haven't read the ruling, but I'm wondering if it dictates that the version without Media Player must be significantly cheaper than the version with.

      If not, I think the thing up the sleeve will be:

      Microsoft Price List 2005
      Windows XP for OEMs (with Media Player): £59.99
      Windows XP for OEMs (without Media Player): £64.99

      Either that or something equally effective like they won't allow bulk discounts on the version without media player.

  • Who get the $$$ from the fine? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:07PM (#11457800) Homepage Journal
    I'm currious here, who get the 497 million euro fine? The EU or charities or who?
    • Hopefully whoever buys Windows products in Europe for the next few years, since they're the ones who'll really pay it.

      To me it looks like a rather indirect form of taxing the European population, unless we really think Microsoft is just going to take a chunk out of profits.
    • The fines are still being appealed (who wouldn't appeal half a billion Euros in fines?!). MS only agreed to strip WMP from Windows.
    • If it's a *fine* rather than damages, then it goes to the EU. I think some damages go to real, who lost money because people used windows media for their streaming and not real because windows media player was on every windows pc and real player wasn't. Or something like that.
    • Since when does *ANY* fine go elsewhere than the gov. inning it?

      I love tsunami's like the next guy, but if this money goes to tsunami victims, I'll be moving to Thailand.
    • Ironsides notes I worry about moderators who mod posts as overated.

      Hmmn, I reserve that for posts whih have high scores, but contain factual errors credibly corrected in subsequent posts.

      --dave

  • Not a major drag (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@nospaM.zen.co.uk> on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:07PM (#11457806)
    It's not hard for them to put out another release without WMP. They release newer OS CDs all the time, the latest boxes of XP on the shelves have SP2 integrated.

    It will be interesting to see how many people choose to install WMP.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Actually, you are at no disadvantage at all. WMP for OS X is appalling. It refuses to play almost anything I give it (including the last two .wmv files linked to from the /. front page. In contrast, VLC handles most things. I have yet to find something that VLC will not handle that the OS X version of WMP will, but I have found many things for which the reverse is true, including a number of .avi and .wmv files.
      • That's completely fair. WMV is a proprietary codec, and MS is restricting playback to ensure there is no challenge to their DRM regime.

        Of course, nobody said using WMV to encode *anything* was a good idea in the first place, because there are more portable DRM free formats.

  • Software dominance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:10PM (#11457836) Homepage
    "Microsoft has decided not to appeal the European court order to implement antitrust sanctions, Instead, Microsoft hopes to win their main appeal that they (Microsoft) had abused their software dominance."

    Their "dominance" will wither away, and quickly, if they don't start doing something about security issues.

    Then what will they do? Sue customers for running away?

    • Re:Software dominance? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by netsavior ( 627338 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:25PM (#11458031)
      Their "dominance" will wither away, and quickly, if they don't start doing something about security issues.

      That's like saying the U.S. is going to start to lose population quickly if they don't do something about their Medical Care or Foreign Policy. Sure Canada might have a lower crime rate and better medical care, but people just aren't willing to move away from a life that is warm, familiar, easy, etc.

      No matter what happens to windows, users will probably never switch, and certainly not "Quickly" (speaking in terms of a percentage)
      • Well, actually, both wrong (parent & grand parent).

        The dominance will stay for a while, but MS won't have large revenues either. Most people won't switch to *nix from windows just like that, BUT most people won't buy a new version of windows neither. That's why you see those weird statistics about win98 being still there in the top. Although, when these systems DO get really outdated (with hardware changes), most users WILL consider switching to linux if they know about it rather than buying windows
        • >Most people won't switch to *nix from windows

          Why is some unix the alternative? There's a popular and commercial and well-supported platform out there for the home user. Its called a Mac. I swear, reading some of these posts its like linux is the spoiler third-party candidate.

          1. Install some linux on ma's computer.
          2. Ma gets all confused with the command line and is sick of the lack of commercial apps and decides windows is the way to be and switches back.
          3. MS wins.

          Buy Ma a Mac and chances are that
          • Long upgrade cycles make switching to a Mac even easier. VirtualPC currently runs at about 20-40% of the speed of the host system, so if the computer you are replacing is a few years old then you can still run all of your old programs at the same speed (except ones that require 3D acceleration, for now). QEMU is also progressing well and is apparently getting close to VirtualPC in terms of speed.

  • Media Player link (Score:3, Funny)

    by CPUgrind ( 630274 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:20PM (#11457958)
    So now when a link to a media file is clicked instead of opening Windows Media Player, Windows will probably open a Web Browser to download Windows Medial Player.
    • <RANT>
      You know what sucks? When a machine is used to visit a site that installs a trojan via ActiveX controls, and your virus software can't remove it, so you clean it up as best you can by hand and you install FireFox to prevent it from happening again, and make it the default web browser so all your other applications won't use IE, then you figure you should make sure you have the latest security updates for Windows and you click on the "Windows Update" link and -- it launches IE to connect! Fresh

  • No, no. Business as usual... (Score:3, Informative)

    by KontinMonet ( 737319 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:20PM (#11457970) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: "...but it [MS] is continuing with a separate, main appeal against the Commission's decision that it abused the near monopoly of its Windows operating system..."

    So if it wins here, will sanctions eventually be dropped? It's just manoeuvring by MS surely.
    • Yes, sanctions will be dropped if MS wins that appeal.

      Yes, MS is being shifty, because they claim they have "already provided data to competitors" regarding their API's and so on (part of the immediate remedy), but I'm not sure if the samba guys are getting any benefit, and assuredly they are the ones who stand to gain the most. The full disclosure of windows APIs would be incredibly useful for someone writing interoperability code. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please!
  • You Lose! Now everyone selling this bastardized copy will be calling tech support asking "why can't I play this movie file like on my friends (with WMP) computer?

  • A good move by MS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:24PM (#11458030) Journal
    I think MS is playing this smart. It is better for them to cooperate now and hope to kill the monetary penalty than to say "We will fight to keep Windows the way we want it!". I know they want to use WMP to take over another market but to INSIST that it must stay would just piss too many important people off. Better to fold on this and just keep WMP an easy free download and continue to pursue the strategy of convincing content providers that using WMP formats is the way to go.

    I am in no way condoning or approving MS business tactics. I am only judging the merits of the effectiveness of such strategies.

    My own perspective is that a music/video utility should be bundled with all OS's but that WMP is evil because it is being used to promote Microsoft's proprietary sound and video formats. MS is again relying on thier tried and true tactics of "embrace and extend".

    But since the EU "picked up" on this theme it is bettor for MS to be a little more "low key" with this strategy than be arogant about it. It seems MS is grown a little wiser since the AntiTrust trial in the USA (despite winning it).

    • Better to fold on this and just keep WMP an easy free download

      You may have hit on an idea there.

      What if the version without media player still installs WMP, but disables the frontend? Then the "download" could simply enable WMP. Small, fast download, effortless and safe integration - and it doesn't affect any third party software which hooks into the media player APIs.
  • To European customers they should sell a stripped down version for the same price that includes almost nothing. Not even notepad, IE, screensavers, windows update access, or minesweeper. Then they could sell an add-on CD for $29 that includes all the typically imbedded programs.
    • So basically Microsoft should start selling DOS again?

    • Windows update should stay in - All OS's must contain a self-updating system (user controlled and not dubious spyware of course). This will ensure that systems are patched up to date and reduce the hideous flow of worms and spam-zombie PC's we have to contend with.

      There should be some text editor, as a text editor is a vital component of any OS.

      As strange as it sounds, I can't imagine going back to a time when an OS couldn't have you browsing the internet immediately after installation. Most Linux distr

  • They WILL appeal.(No one read the article, right?) (Score:3, Informative)

    by valentyn ( 248783 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:29PM (#11459031) Homepage
    Yes, I know this is Slashdot. Yes I know.

    Yet, the article states very clearly: "Microsoft said it would continue to appeal the Commission's landmark ruling".

    The only thing they won't appeal is the court order to "immediately implement antitrust sanctions".

    This only means they will not appeal the ruling that says "you need to implement this NOW", which is in fact a ruling to the appeal they made to the main sanctions (sorry for getting complicated).

    Appealing this "NOW!" ruling would not make any difference for the "NOW!" part, and it will not make any difference for the damages Microsoft will claim for the main case. And as there are no extra damages to the NOW! part, there's nothing to do here - which is exactly what Yahoo says.
  • okay.

    so does anyone know _how_ i can ask for specification documents and IDL files for the Exchange network interfaces?

  • Hmmm. (Score:2)

    by hey! ( 33014 )
    So, it's not clear at all what Microsoft intends to do or not do here. I doubt what they will do will give media player competitors anything like equal footing on the Windows platform.

    So, i imagine a scenario like this:

    Europe: Give us a version of windows without WMP!

    Microsoft: OK. [takes a copy of windows, rips out WMP and hands the remains, bleeding and dripping entrails of unimplemented APIs to Europe]

    Europe: But, this is a piece of shit!

    Microsoft: Yep. Told you it would be.

  • Software markets develop quickly compared to the time scales that govern the legal system.

    Consequently, a Windows XP without an embedded Microsoft media player practically becomes an inconvenience to users accustomed to it being there.

    While intended to provide a level playing field for all competitors that can provide media player technology, all the EU ruling does is to level a playing field too late, with only one player left on the field, after the near-vertical playing field has caused all lesser com

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close