I can assure you that my ISP couldn't care less about me more than the money he gets. I live in a country where everything is possible. You are invited. "I'm afraid the end is near. -Oh, really? -Yes. -Well then.. I guess this is goodbye.. -Yep. -Well, perhaps you can do someth.. -Goodbye. -No..? [long pause] okay then.

0

LOL Suffix, ,very true (re;northern Rock :D & we need the Tourists this year shame about the weather $/£ exchange and endless bad press. Nah cancel , visit when the weather is better,& bring waders. M$ antitrust case will rumble on for a few more years yet, the lawyers need the cash. :)

0

"300 million euro per day, applied retroactively from July 31 last year." quite some fine ... anyone got a calendar and calculator? LOL

0

I just applied for my settlement from MS over the Microsoft-California class action lawsuit. I don't know the date this was covering, but I applied for my purchase of Windows 3.1! This lawsuit accused MS of charging TOO MUCH for their OS's. I think I paid about $90, back around 1995-96. They don't seem to have learned very much, judging by the prices they are asking for the current Vista OS. I guess when you are THAT LARGE you just go on with business as usual and let the lawsuits fall where they may. If you can manage to be above the law, you become the law. And lawyers do need something to do, after all. It would be funny, but it ain't. A positive attitude won't solve all your problems, but it will annoy just enough people to be worth the effort.

0

contributing to the campaign of a republican presidential candidate with a pending anti trust lawsuit in mind is one thing ... messing with the European Commission in a legal battle at the European Court that has a reputation to side with the European Commission is an entirely different dimension (ask Siemens, Volkswagen or the major European building contractors). if they want to hurt you, it will hurt. a ruling against Microsoft is bound to threaten their long-standing business strategy and could spell financial disaster.

0

Oracle - I hope you're right but my guts is that by checking out the Virtual Pressroom they set aside HERE for matters related to CFI (EU's Court of First Instance), M$ believe they are invincible or above law just like ex-President Nixon thought he was before he resigned. In any event the CFI decision will be read Monday September 17, 2007 at 9:30 CET (central europe time) which is 4:30 AM EST (eastern Standard Time) my time here in NY. No way am I going to get up that early to listen to it. I value my sleep more than anything else. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

ahh the early bird get's the worm for me today! EU court crushes Microsoft's antitrust appeal http://www.reuters.com/article/ousi... "In a revealing detail, the court ordered Microsoft to pay most of the costs including some of its business rivals' which had supported the Commission's case."

0

Yep you got all the good worms I hope you don't get sick from eating them all at once - LOL. For a reading of EU CFI's 248-page ruling outlined with 1373 specific citations, go HERE and click on T-201/04 Judgment dated 2007-09-17. What I predict M$ will do next is lobby & rally the Congress & the Department of Justice particularly the Assistant AG Thomas Barnett (he's a close friend of M$) to tell European Commission Commissioners to go "shove it up your a##." Stay tuned for M$ official statement. Right now it's still too early for them to be wide-awake - Redmond clocks now reads 3:02 AM PST (here in NY it is 6:02 AM EST) i_Xp/VistaUser

0

go and get your coffee!!! 6 am ... are you nuts??? :P

0

LOL I'm drinking it now - it's flavored with French Vanilla. 6 AM isn't really that early for me - I used to get up at 5 AM to drive to work before my retirement. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

yeah, remember this 5 AM sh*t too well, when i was in the army, as if the russians (back then it was the russians, remember :) get up that early. never got used to it tho. MS lawyer Brad Smith welcomed the ruling. 'now we have the opportunity to negotiate with the EU again without a pending court case.' i think, someone didn't get it LOL pal, you just got fined a billion dollars, wake up.

0

I'm glad you mentioned M$ top lawyer Brad Smith. In March 2006 he was so optimistic that M$ will win over EU fines. Look here for the story. The following September M$ awarded him stock worth $2.3 million just for a job well done. See the story HERE. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

And still considering a further fine for non-compliance. But hey, MS can still appeal to the "European Court of Justice" Plus: "to share with rivals key information allowing their office servers to work smoothly with Windows" - well, i think MS would rather stick forks in they eyes. Their going to worm some way to keep their monopolies, that's what they do!

0

Hi joeshmoe7 - Welcome to CN :-) Of course that's why 1stepbeyond mentioned in Post 8 above that M$ antitrust case will rumble on for a few more years yet. BTW how did the worms taste? Were it delicious? LOL i_Xp/VistaUser

0

LOL, just realized i used to word worm again, i don't know must be some weird craving. Nice links to the job well done on Mr. Smith, that made my day.

0

LOL. The $2.3 million awarded Brad Smith occurred in September of last year. This year September I wonder if M$ Board of Directors will demand a "pay us back the reward with all interests accured" and then summarily fire him for misleading the company. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

Alright let's close this thread with the following prologue... And it all began in 1998 when Sun Microsystems filed a complaint with European Commission over Microsoft’s refusal to disclose its confidential server protocols — computer code that competitors need to make their servers or desktop computers work with Microsoft products. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

A fine is to M$: as a surprise raid is to the mob's chop shop. They both know when, what, where, from whom & how it's all going to go down. Heck, they've even rehearsed the drill many times prior to each occurrence .... LOL. For years now, M$ has had to deal with one restitution liability or another, perhaps, on a weekly basis that I'm sure it's now been factored into their TCO on a permanent basis. To them, the EU brouhaha is yet another attempt at a shake down, albeit on a huge scale ... their response -- as rehearsed -- is simply ... BRING IT! Take for instance, A couple of weeks ago, they had agreed to fork over close to $200M in Iowa, but that (as we all know) is a drop in the sea. A fine is a win-win for the prosecutor & the defense .... the people who are going to bear the brunt are the EU citizens. You can tame this beast, but in no way are you going to succeed at leashing & caging it. There's just too much capital stake here, If the heat from the EU ever gets that hot (not that it would) for M$, the U.S. government won't hesitate to step in. BTW PC Bob, if you compare the cost of M$ OS going back to Windows 3.1, Vista is actually cheaper .... you have to remember to adjust the OS prices for inflation.

0

"If the heat from the EU ever gets that hot (not that it would) for M$, the U.S. government won't hesitate to step in." ... as it did on behalf of Monsanto? :)

0

You are correct, Sabertooth. However, comparing my current salary (about half) to what I was earning then leaves a rather sour taste in my mouth. It was rather pricey to me then, and Vista is still too high for my taste now. It makes Linux look better all the time. LOL I just noticed the banner below, about the Director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, not being able to justify going to Linux, since they need 'trusted, tested technology that's reliable and predictable.' Hah! Boy , have they bought a load of crap. They just don't get it, do they? A positive attitude won't solve all your problems, but it will annoy just enough people to be worth the effort.

0

I guess this thread refuse to rest. Speaking of DOJ interventing in cases on behalf of M$... Don't forget MS has a friend (ally) in the DOJ - the Assistant AG - oops it's the top antitrust official - Thomas Barnett. Quoted: The administration also intervened on behalf of Microsoft in December 2005, when the Justice Department sharply criticized the Korean Fair Trade Commission after that agency ordered major changes in Microsoft's marketing practices in South Korea. And in 2004, the Justice Department criticized the European Commission for punishing Microsoft for including its video and audio player with its operating system. The DOJ certainly will step in once again on behalf of M$. Who knows this will worsen the already-strained relationship between the U.S. & Europe (and perhaps the rest of the World) like it has with Russia over the building of the anti-missile defense system in Russia's former backyards. i_Xp/VistaUser

0

While all of the above posts were informative, the most incisive was Sabertooth's: You can tame this beast, but in no way are you going to succeed at leashing & caging it. There's just too much capital stake here, If the heat from the EU ever gets that hot (not that it would) for M$, the U.S. government won't hesitate to step in. No matter what our feelings about large corporations in general, or Microsoft in particular, that old saw is still true: Cash talks and bullsh*t walks. And, of course, the US government would step in if it had to. If any one of us owned Microsoft, we would also want the government's assistance. To claim otherwise is not believable. As far as XpUser's claim that the DOJ's helping MS could strain our relationship with . . .Russia over the building of the anti-missile defense system in Russia's former backyards. . .Putin's Russia will live with it. It's no more of a strain than it was for America in the mid-1970s when Jimmy Carter permitted the (then) Soviet Union to surpass us in tactical and strategic nuclear capabilities.

0

Of course Putin Russia will live with it. On the political scenes they look strained but off it they talk like buddies, horseback ride together, laugh & dance. The question here is who is the winner? EU? The end-users? Or no one at all? i_Xp/VistaUser

0

"of course, the US government would step in if it had to." i see, you violate the law in a country where you want to do business, and when brought to justice, your government will step in. someone here's showing little or no respect to other countries sovereignty. MS would be ill advised to appeal because the EC in case of another ruling its favor WILL impose the retroactive fines for non-compliance.

0

Let's read M$ response below. M$ top lawyer Brad Smith wrote it for the EU Commissioners. At the same time he also released it as a PR ploy for rest of the World. My guts is that it ceretainly doesn't look like a "OK We give up and we will now obey the laws" - yet. http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/... i_Xp/VistaUser

0

The_Oracle writes: "someone here's showing little or no respect to other countries sovereignty." Sovereignty? That's nonsense. Microsoft may be guilty of unfair trade practices, but in no way threatens the sovereignty of any member of the European Union. The European Commission, which is effectively the EU's civil service, oversees treaties, recommends actions under the treaties, and issues decisions on EU matters. And although it's their right, the EC's decisions are often antithetical to US interests to begin with - despite the financial help (counted in billions) that the US has provided to the EU's member countries over the years. Incidentally, The European Commission's credibility in cases such as these had looked in doubt last July when the Court of First Instance decided to overrule the watchdog's decision to bar a merger between two French energy firms. The commission was forced to pay damages. XpUser writes: "My guts is that it ceretainly doesn't look like a "OK We give up and we will now obey the laws" - yet. I agree. And, yes, Brad Smith's response for MS certainly does read like a public relations ploy.

0

"Sovereignty? That's nonsense. Microsoft may be guilty of unfair trade practices, but in no way threatens the sovereignty of any member of the European Union" didn't say microsoft is threatening the sovereignty, did i? i was referring to the comment that 'the US government would step in if it had to' ... a government appointed by a president who happened to have benefited the most from MS' political campaign contributions honi soit qui mal y pense :)

0

..'the US government would step in if it had to' ... a government appointed by a president who happened to have benefited the most from MS' political campaign contributions This is what is happening now. Why else should the US DOJ be concerned about M$ European defeat? See article below http://www.reuters.com/article/tech... i_Xp/VistaUser

0

You know what - I suddenly recall reporting to work for a large corporation the very first day. At the Benefits department, a manager sitting next to me told me in whispers to consider contributing a certain percent of my paycheck to PAC. He explained that if I didn't, I'm seen as a dead duck among the upper management. Contributing a chuck of my paycheck to PAC took care of my advancement through the rank over the years. What does this tell you? It's all about MONEY PLUS POLITICS, not what is right or wrong. This is the America way, isn't it? P.S. If you don't know what PAC is - it is Political Action Committee. PAC exists in every large corporations that bid for government contract in all sectors of the industries, both defense and non-defense. See the following link for categorization of PACs (or political money line) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi... i_Xp/VistaUser

0

I appears to me that the DOJ is interested in the EU case simply because they do have US interests. I agree the US government should not interfere with this case and intervene on MS behalf. If another government was subjecting MS to rules that resulted in unfair competition that would be a different matter. The facts of the matter do show that MS uses preditory business practices. They buy the competition in an effort to stifle competition. I have no problem with MS bundling additional features. After all we all look for extras when buying hardware. Buy a scanner and get free software. The difference is we have a choice of using the extras or not.

0

The_Oracle writes: "honi soit qui mal y pense." This bit of Old French (translated, "shame upon him who thinks evil of it") has little relevence to his observation that ours is "a government appointed by a president who happened to have benefited the most from MS' political campaign contributions." Well, of course. As did the Clinton administration for its two terms. If this were happening in 1997 instead of 2007, Clinton's administration would have responded in exactly the same way. The link from XpUser provides today's example: "On Capitol Hill, a Florida Democrat expressed concern that the European ruling could trigger new antitrust cases and said he would hold hearings to discuss the case." OtheHill writes: "I[t] appears to me that the DOJ is interested in the EU case simply because they do have US interests. No argument. :)

0

i have no problems with MS bundling software, and if WMP driving the obnoxious Realplayer out the market, bravo!! :) what bothers me is the fact that you do NOT have the choice. the bloat installs with windows, whether you like it or not (i know, i know ... nLite). this is not my understanding of consumer-friendliness. MS does it with Office, why not with Windows? implementing those famous 3 buttons (minimum, complete, custom) into the setup routine can't be that big a deal.

0

Oracle, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the installation - "(minimum, complete, custom)" - of the operating system. The only reason I haven't used nLite, or other methods to strip out parts of the OS I don't consider useful, is that I have a couple of huge hard drives. As far as overall speed, I've made my version of XP extremely quick through a few dozen registry edits. Having 1024 megs of RAM doesn't hurt either. Never had (not one) Blue Screen of Death. Last one of those I had was with Windows 98, nearly ten years ago. Had to grin with your reference to the "obnoxious Realplayer." Let's call it what it is: a piece of sh*t! It came bundled with XP when I bought one of my PCs back in 2001 and was the first utility I uninstalled. Between RealPlayer and the removal of the bundled WeatherBug, I used a registry editor after the uninstalls and found over 50 orphan registry keys. Which isn't nearly as tough as removing every last trace of an AOL installation. I recently did it on a friend's computer and turned up 130 orphan keys. To remove AOL, you literally have to pull it out by the teeth. (I set him up with Earthlink and he's been a happy camper ever since.) But, yes, an option from MS to let the user easily decide what type of OS installation suits him best would be both consumer-friendly and much appreciated. :)

0

Microsoft and the consumers' right to self determination , two things that don't go together well. now a foreign court got them by the balls and some folks are calling for a Declaration of National Emergency. c'mon, that's ridiculous. if you need more proof, i posted this earlier today in another thread: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

0