10 September 2006
EU Commission vs. Microsoft - not a witch-hunt
I've been reading comments about the EU Commission's actions vs. Microsoft and a lot of people have the wrong idea about what the Commission is doing.
A lot of the comments mention things about witch-hunt tactics and think the Commission is trying to hurt Microsoft in some way and is being unfair because of not going after other companies such as Apple.
A person has to remember this is in regard to anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly, it's not about only providing their own products on the system or trying to prevent other software from running on the system, it's about being the one company with a tremendous amount of market share in comparison to all competitors while having business practices that try to force everyone to avoid competition. MS has the market lead, they do not have to try to step on the territory of people such as Adobe by trying to include their own document reader in their software with it greatly tied into the system and defaulting to it or prevent any other company from producing software completely compatible with the Office Suite by not releasing any standards. Of course also Microsoft's actions taken to ensure that companies do not release computers with other operating systems or with no operating system for people who either own a MS license and don't want to buy another that they don't need or for those who want to install Linux on their system and don't feel like building their own system nor paying for an OS that they have no intention of using.
Microsoft is trying to manipulate people into thinking that the Commission is being unfair against them and is not trying to cooperate. The problem is it is not the Commission's responsibility to tell any company if their software fits within the European anti-trust laws. It is the responsibility of Microsoft to know those laws, which they do, and produce a system that fits within them and try not to hold onto their monopoly. A company that releases good software and plays fair need not worry about holding onto market share, people will use the software anyway, some will try other software, but provided your software is stable enough for people's wishes and includes features that people want which is usually the case for Microsoft software, excluding the stability.
As an example, I personally dislike Windows XP, but find Office XP nice and it was the first version of Outlook I actually liked. If an option is provided people will pick and choose the things they like and market share will not decrease too much from playing fair.
When a company doesn't play fair though, people begin to hate all of the products because they dislike one that they have to have to use another. At the same time they also hate the company as a whole because of the company's business practices. This is the main reason for Microsoft to continue using those dirty tactics. Microsoft as a company has a sickness that involves being dreadfully afraid of failure. They have become such a huge company but still are terrified that they will fail and their practices show just that.
A lot of the comments mention things about witch-hunt tactics and think the Commission is trying to hurt Microsoft in some way and is being unfair because of not going after other companies such as Apple.
A person has to remember this is in regard to anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly, it's not about only providing their own products on the system or trying to prevent other software from running on the system, it's about being the one company with a tremendous amount of market share in comparison to all competitors while having business practices that try to force everyone to avoid competition. MS has the market lead, they do not have to try to step on the territory of people such as Adobe by trying to include their own document reader in their software with it greatly tied into the system and defaulting to it or prevent any other company from producing software completely compatible with the Office Suite by not releasing any standards. Of course also Microsoft's actions taken to ensure that companies do not release computers with other operating systems or with no operating system for people who either own a MS license and don't want to buy another that they don't need or for those who want to install Linux on their system and don't feel like building their own system nor paying for an OS that they have no intention of using.
Microsoft is trying to manipulate people into thinking that the Commission is being unfair against them and is not trying to cooperate. The problem is it is not the Commission's responsibility to tell any company if their software fits within the European anti-trust laws. It is the responsibility of Microsoft to know those laws, which they do, and produce a system that fits within them and try not to hold onto their monopoly. A company that releases good software and plays fair need not worry about holding onto market share, people will use the software anyway, some will try other software, but provided your software is stable enough for people's wishes and includes features that people want which is usually the case for Microsoft software, excluding the stability.
As an example, I personally dislike Windows XP, but find Office XP nice and it was the first version of Outlook I actually liked. If an option is provided people will pick and choose the things they like and market share will not decrease too much from playing fair.
When a company doesn't play fair though, people begin to hate all of the products because they dislike one that they have to have to use another. At the same time they also hate the company as a whole because of the company's business practices. This is the main reason for Microsoft to continue using those dirty tactics. Microsoft as a company has a sickness that involves being dreadfully afraid of failure. They have become such a huge company but still are terrified that they will fail and their practices show just that.
