Europe: Time running out for Microsoft

TalkBack 48 of 125:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Call your bluff

"You provide less links than I, and I already had them
bookmarked."

It was never amount the number of links, the difference is
my links support what I said and your links disprove what
you said.

"Provide some new links."

Strange when it is you making unsubstantiated claims? But I
will continue to prove you wrong, still looking for that
elusive win?

"You can't even read what people are saying in the article. I
read Carlo and you said the EC. Comprehension problems."

Where? Again with your lies. My quotes have all been
attributed to the correct source!

"THEY WERE ORDERED! - DUH!

Appendix: Files Required to Be Removed by the European
Commission Decision End User Multimedia Functionality"

Yes they were ordered to remove WMP - well duh! However
your claim was what the EC required broke RP and QT -
THIS IS NOT TRUE - IT IS A LIE.

Here's what the EC defined as WMP in the order from the EC
(you know the original unchanged order than you still
haven't read:

[quote]
(6) the term ?Windows Media Player? means the media
code which Microsoft Corporation currently distributes as
WMP in Windows XP Embedded (thus including components
that support the Windows Media codecs, Windows
media file formats, WMDRM and the WMP User Interface);
for future versions of the Windows Client PC Operating
System, the term ?Windows Media Player? shall cover the
foregoing components;
[/quote]

The reasons for this scope are discussed in this [url=http:/
/management.silicon.com/government/
0,39024677,39119381,00.htm]article[/url] covering the
hearings. The EC was happy with Real Player working
without WMP installed. Again showing the EC did not
demand components to be removed breaking RP, and that
the order explicitly required it didn't. YOUR CLAIM IS A LIE.

You claim the EC has changed its ruling, or the
interpretation of it ruling, THIS IS A LIE.

You claim that the EC required code for interoperability -
THIS IS A LIE.

Your claim that the EC didn't address the MS requirement
for payment for the interoperability information - THIS IS A
LIE.

"Either that or you are a liar. From what I have read, it isn't
as bad as I thought for MS."

Pot meet Mr Kettle.

The decision is pro-competition. It is bad for MS is only the
extent to which they would find it difficult competing in a
more competitive market (and a huge fine).

Posted by: Richard Flude   Posted on: 05/17/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now