Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. Commission
 | Computing Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | European Union Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Corp. v. Commission article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
Antitrust?
... A case that occurred in the EU, but it is still being referred to as an antitrust case? We call it competition law, not antitrust law, so lets work a bit on this. This article is also lacking in references to judgments. Edit: I may accept the antitrust, but come on, the only link to a judgment makes it clear that was in fact the Commissions decision. I hope someone who actually followed this debacle has a clue as to what went on, because it'll take me a while to research this one. Sephui 14:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the use of the term "antitrust" is used so that it would be easily understandable to an American audience. On the EU site itself, "competition" is described as "antitrust" http://www.eurunion.org/policyareas/antitrust.htm, albeit on the delegation to the U.S.'s site. Utxhalfer 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)utxhalfer
Only as a pointer to Americans - the term 'antitrust' itself is an anacronism 138.37.250.195 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruling
"for alleged antitrust abuse." -- as there is a ruling by the Commission it is not "alleged" abuse anymore.
To be done
An authority and a plaintiff are not on the same level. An antitrust authority is a kind of court or "market police". Some players complain, so an investigation is started and a ruling made. The party can appeal at a court. Microsoft and the EU are not on the same level.Arebenti 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) e.g. "EU announced that it believed Microsoft did not comply fully with the ruling," - no! The EU competition authority rules: x does not comply yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arebenti (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The funny thing about this case is that the authority is the plaintiff, which is why the EU was recently "allowed" to fine Microsoft so much, even though they were the plaintiff. Makes no sense, which is why I'm glad I live in America. Microsoft is gonna appeal to the most recent fine as it is just ridiculous. Did anyone think for a second when this case started that Microsoft could really win? Look at the facts here: the EU authority is ruling over a case between the EU and Microsoft... Doesn't anyone see the bias here at all? The EU had this case locked up before it even began. They have too much authority to do what they want there. Microsoft should just pull out of Europe and recall all systems currently in Europe. See how Europe does without the best computer system on the market today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Plantiff is the European Commission, the judgement was from the European Court. The jurisdicial and executive branches are seperate, this is no different from the way things work in the US with the DOJ and state government suing Microsoft in the Supreme Court. You're probably right that most people recognised Microsoft had no chance, but that was because it was clear as daylight Microsoft broke EU law. Microsoft is fully entitled to pull out of Europe, the fact that they haven't suggest they recognise it will be their loss to do so. As long as they operate in the EU, they are obligated to obey EU law. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even in homicide cases the State is the plaintiff and the judges are paid by the State, but this doesn't mean that the defendant is going to lose automatically ...
No mention of FSFE?
Free Software Foundation Europe have been working on this since the beginning (2001?) and are admitted as third-parties (supporting the Samba project). There's currently no mention of them or free software or Samba in the article. I'll try to add something when I get time but some help'd be great. --Gronky 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did some clean-up, more is required. IMO there should be a section about what penalties have been applied, split into three subsections on fines, interop specs, and de-bundling. --Gronky 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) website is worth reading, and will make a good ext link -so I will add it in a minute.--Aspro 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No mention of realnetworks and others competitors?
according to groklaw RealNetworks was one of the first complainers... that lead to the production of the N version of windows
Software patents
It was claimed that EPO granting software patents was "illegitimate" followed by examples of why it may or may not be legitimate. Without sources this was an opinion - not a fact and I removed it. 63.241.31.130 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
there is also that:
(11) Throughout the procedure, a significant number of companies, comprising major Microsoft competitors, as well as industrial associations, have been admitted as interested third parties. These are inter alia the Association for Competitive Technology (“ACT”), Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”, previously AOL Time Warner), the Computer & Communications Industry Association (“the CCIA”), the Computing Technology Industry Association (“CompTIA”), the Free Software Foundation Europe (“FSF Europe”), Lotus Corporation (“Lotus”), Novell Inc. (“Novell”), RealNetworks, Inc. (“RealNetworks”), and the Software & Information Industry Association (“the SIIA”). Microsoft has been asked to comment on certain submissions by these interested third parties and by the complainant Sun, and in particular on the comments that these third parties and the complainant made on Microsoft’s reply to the second Statement of Objections and on certain submissions that they made following the supplementary Statement of Objections.
from http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by GNUtoo (talk • contribs)
Timeline
Maybe a timeline of the whole process should be added? Like here: http://www.eubusiness.com/news_live/1189648026.39/ Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)