Micoshaft set to violate EU rules again over IE
7
-----------------------------------------------------
Micoshaft is poised to violate EU rules again by
offering 'free' download of IE.
It is NOT free to produce.
It is unfair competition to the likes of Opera that
have paying customers.
It is not fair to Open Source browsers like Firefox
because it has fee paying sponsors.
IE has no fee paying sponsors. It is money stolen
from OS customers by illegal monopoly levy
which is then used to fund a competing browser.
This is an utter and complete distortion of the
free market.
DRAM producers were fined a huge amount of money
for the same thing in EU - they subsidised their sales
in EU by deleting the shipping cost from the final
product sales price to gain an unfair advantage.
The full cost of IE should be slapped on it when
IE is downloaded to be fair to other companies
and their business income.
The EU regulator are asleep again drunk on tax
payer money as usual while monopolies abuse the free market
by distorting competition.
Hadron
> Micoshaft set to violate EU rules again again over IE
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Micoshaft is poised to violate EU rules again by
> offering 'free' download of IE.
>
> It is NOT free to produce.
>
> It is unfair competition to the likes of Opera that
> have paying customers.
And Linux costs? Oh yes! It's free..
You're an idiot.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> writes:
>
>> Micoshaft set to violate EU rules again again over IE
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Micoshaft is poised to violate EU rules again by
>> offering 'free' download of IE.
>>
>> It is NOT free to produce.
>>
>> It is unfair competition to the likes of Opera that
>> have paying customers.
>
> And Linux costs? Oh yes! It's free..
Linux is operating within commercial free market.
Linux and open source browsers are free as in freedom not price.
So its free, you get source code, and you don't get support. You and every
commercial entity that relies on it buys the support.
The micoshaft practice of offering a 'free' browser
is free as in gratis and its all funded by over charging
OS purchasing customers to illegally subsidise their IE browser
to make it compete against rival commerical browser competitors.
There is no relation between supply and demand or free market
connection when someone downloads micoshaft IE. It is entirely
funded illegally by overcharging OS purchasing customers.
The OS customers should have their charges for OS reduced so that when
they install Opera, they are not paying double for a browser.
Once by micoshaft monopoly with a hidden anti-trust levy
and second time for Opera.
The full cost of producing IE should be levied for IE downloader so that
they know what they are paying for and do not steal from other browser
vendors that get their fair income from selling browsers priced fairly.
> You're an idiot.
Says asstroturfer for micoshaft screaming abuse at internet users
to make a living.
Asstroturfing illegal as of 26 May 2007 in EU for that reason.
boris
Boris
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:UnBYl.41690$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> H
*plonk*
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Micoshaft set to violate EU rules again again over IE
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Micoshaft is poised to violate EU rules again by
> offering 'free' download of IE.
>
> It is NOT free to produce.
>
> It is unfair competition to the likes of Opera that
> have paying customers.
Opera is not free to produce, yet they offer a free download. So by your
argument, they are violating EU rules.
>
> It is not fair to Open Source browsers like Firefox
> because it has fee paying sponsors.
So by your argument it is against EU rules for Mozilla to offer free
Firefox downloads?
--
--Tim Smith
Andrew Halliwell
> Opera is not free to produce, yet they offer a free download. So by your
> argument, they are violating EU rules.
>
>>
>> It is not fair to Open Source browsers like Firefox
>> because it has fee paying sponsors.
>
> So by your argument it is against EU rules for Mozilla to offer free
> Firefox downloads?
a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
They're rules specifically FOR monopolies, not for everyone.
Don't want to be forced to abide by these rules?
Simples (squeek)
Prevent yourself from becoming a monopoly. (or give up monopoly status)
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Erik Funkenbusch
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Opera is not free to produce, yet they offer a free download. So by your
>> argument, they are violating EU rules.
>>
>>>
>>> It is not fair to Open Source browsers like Firefox
>>> because it has fee paying sponsors.
>>
>> So by your argument it is against EU rules for Mozilla to offer free
>> Firefox downloads?
>
> EU rules for giving away free stuff differ depending on whether the giver is
> a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
Ok, so where are these rules? Obviously, if they're laws, they should bo
codified somewhere. Right?
Can you please point me to the EU laws or regulations that relate to a
monopoly giving away free products, and how Microsoft is violating them?
Hadron
Hopefully the kid can back himself up on at least one of his high brow
claims today. Or will he slink away? Let's wait and see.
Andrew Halliwell
>> EU rules for giving away free stuff differ depending on whether the giver is
>> a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
>
> Ok, so where are these rules? Obviously, if they're laws, they should bo
> codified somewhere. Right?
>
> Can you please point me to the EU laws or regulations that relate to a
> monopoly giving away free products, and how Microsoft is violating them?
How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in other
countries)?
For a company to undersell is legal UNLESS they're a monopoly who's sole aim
is to force others out of business.
Giving stuff away free is the ultimate in underselling. The only way they
could undersell by MORE is by paying people to use it.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Sinister Midget
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> EU rules for giving away free stuff differ depending on whether the giver is
>>> a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
>>
>> Ok, so where are these rules? Obviously, if they're laws, they should bo
>> codified somewhere. Right?
>>
>> Can you please point me to the EU laws or regulations that relate to a
>> monopoly giving away free products, and how Microsoft is violating them?
>
> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in other
> countries)?
>
> For a company to undersell is legal UNLESS they're a monopoly who's sole aim
> is to force others out of business.
>
> Giving stuff away free is the ultimate in underselling. The only way they
> could undersell by MORE is by paying people to use it.
MICRO$~1 would *never* pay people to use anything. Right? Erik, do
happen to know if that's true? Anybody?
--
Is that really YOU that is reading this?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> EU rules for giving away free stuff differ depending on whether the giver is
>>> a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
>>
>> Ok, so where are these rules? Obviously, if they're laws, they should bo
>> codified somewhere. Right?
>>
>> Can you please point me to the EU laws or regulations that relate to a
>> monopoly giving away free products, and how Microsoft is violating them?
>
> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in other
> countries)?
How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
don't lay out rules.
> For a company to undersell is legal UNLESS they're a monopoly who's sole aim
> is to force others out of business.
Microsoft has given IE away for almost 15 years. That's not
"underselling". They have no intention of selling it. A court of law has
questioned whether there even is a market for browsers.
> Giving stuff away free is the ultimate in underselling. The only way they
> could undersell by MORE is by paying people to use it.
No. Underselling is not illegal. Underselling with the intent to drive
your competition out of busines, in which case you will raise prices to
make up for your underselling is. There is no indication that the latter
is the case.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:27:55 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>> EU rules for giving away free stuff differ depending on whether the
>>>> giver is a monopoly or not... Guess what. So do american rules.
>>>
>>> Ok, so where are these rules? Obviously, if they're laws, they should
>>> bo
>>> codified somewhere. Right?
>>>
>>> Can you please point me to the EU laws or regulations that relate to a
>>> monopoly giving away free products, and how Microsoft is violating them?
>>
>> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in
>> other countries)?
>
> How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
> don't lay out rules.
Liar! Take it to Judge Judy!
The rules are laid out in stone. It is the remedy that is constructively
calculated because each criminal like micoshaft requires its own tailored
punishment.
>> For a company to undersell is legal UNLESS they're a monopoly who's sole
>> aim is to force others out of business.
>
> Microsoft has given IE away for almost 15 years. That's not
> "underselling". They have no intention of selling it. A court of law has
> questioned whether there even is a market for browsers.
>
>> Giving stuff away free is the ultimate in underselling. The only way they
>> could undersell by MORE is by paying people to use it.
>
> No. Underselling is not illegal.
Liar! Products sold below its cost of manufacturing are deemed to be being
dumped.
> Underselling with the intent to drive
> your competition out of busines, in which case you will raise prices to
> make up for your underselling is. There is no indication that the latter
> is the case.
Liar! Netbook price trends prove that micoshaft OSen is over priced.
Interesting that micoshaft have leaned on netbook suppliers to not
supply netbooks and already face anti-trust action over it.
The EU regulators are asleep as ever drunk on tax payer money
and failing to protect consumer interests.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in
>>> other countries)?
>>
>> How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
>> don't lay out rules.
>
> Liar! Take it to Judge Judy!
> The rules are laid out in stone. It is the remedy that is constructively
> calculated because each criminal like micoshaft requires its own tailored
> punishment.
Be my guest. Quote the relevant portion of the sherman anti-trust act that
says that Microsoft may not give away any products for free.
The fact is, these laws are intentionally vague because they cannot codify
anti-commpetitive behavior, because such definitions will always be out of
date and people will come up with new ways.
As such, it's up to a judge to determine if behavior is anti-compatitive or
not. It is not defined in the law.
So you are the one lying, "7".
>>> For a company to undersell is legal UNLESS they're a monopoly who's sole
>>> aim is to force others out of business.
>>
>> Microsoft has given IE away for almost 15 years. That's not
>> "underselling". They have no intention of selling it. A court of law has
>> questioned whether there even is a market for browsers.
>>
>>> Giving stuff away free is the ultimate in underselling. The only way they
>>> could undersell by MORE is by paying people to use it.
>>
>> No. Underselling is not illegal.
>
> Liar! Products sold below its cost of manufacturing are deemed to be being
> dumped.
Then by all means, show me the law. Cite the section.
Well?
>> Underselling with the intent to drive
>> your competition out of busines, in which case you will raise prices to
>> make up for your underselling is. There is no indication that the latter
>> is the case.
>
> Liar! Netbook price trends prove that micoshaft OSen is over priced.
We're not talking about an OS. We're talking about the web browser.
Particularly one that won't ship with an OS and is freely downloadable.
But regardless, you are makiing up your own arguments now, not responding
to what I said.
> Interesting that micoshaft have leaned on netbook suppliers to not
> supply netbooks and already face anti-trust action over it.
You're lying 7.
> The EU regulators are asleep as ever drunk on tax payer money
> and failing to protect consumer interests.
That I can agree with.
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in
> >> other countries)?
> >
> > How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
> > don't lay out rules.
>
>
> Liar! Take it to Judge Judy!
> The rules are laid out in stone. It is the remedy that is constructively
Really? Can you show us where? Be specific. I'll even help get you
started: 15 USC ____. All you need to do is fill in the blank.
...
> >
> > No. Underselling is not illegal.
>
>
> Liar! Products sold below its cost of manufacturing are deemed to be being
> dumped.
What does that have to do with underselling?
Not that it matters, since the manufacturing cost of IE is the same as
the manufacturing cost of Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and every other
browser.
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <29dZl.42528$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> >> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in
>> >> other countries)?
>> >
>> > How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
>> > don't lay out rules.
>>
>> Liar! Take it to Judge Judy!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Take note
>> The rules are laid out in stone. It is the remedy that is constructively
>
> Really? Can you show us where? Be specific. I'll even help get you
> started: 15 USC ____. All you need to do is fill in the blank.
It's quite amusing watching 7 troll Tim and Erik!
--
Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In article <29dZl.42528$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> >> How about the sherman act (and similar antitrust/competition laws in
>>> >> other countries)?
>>> >
>>> > How about it? Those laws do not define what can and can't be done. They
>>> > don't lay out rules.
>>>
>>> Liar! Take it to Judge Judy!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Take note
>
>>> The rules are laid out in stone. It is the remedy that is constructively
>>
>> Really? Can you show us where? Be specific. I'll even help get you
>> started: 15 USC ____. All you need to do is fill in the blank.
>
> It's quite amusing watching 7 troll Tim and Erik!
If I actually thought he was trolling, I'd be quite impressed.
In reality, he really believes what he says. That much is obvious from all
his other clueless posts.
Sinister Midget III
If repeating cluelessness is a sign of belief in one thing or another,
are you saying Flatso's monotonous posts about things not working
really means s/h/it *is* that dumb? How about Ray Dopehead9999? Or
Qook? Or DuFuS, EZKill, RickyDicky, Sn0T and all of the other
reptitious clowns?
--
Unless you're the lead dog, the view never changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Ubuntu 9.04
Homer
> On 2009-06-15, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
> claimed:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:31:36 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>> It's quite amusing watching 7 troll Tim and Erik!
>> If I actually thought he was trolling, I'd be quite impressed.
>>
>> In reality, he really believes what he says. That much is obvious
>> from all his other clueless posts.
>
> If repeating cluelessness is a sign of belief in one thing or
> another, are you saying Flatso's monotonous posts about things not
> working really means s/h/it *is* that dumb? How about Ray
> Dopehead9999? Or Qook? Or DuFuS, EZKill, RickyDicky, Sn0T and all of
> the other reptitious clowns?
Fuddie can't chastise his co-workers. He'd lose his bonus.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
22:44:09 up 19 days, 2:42, 4 users, load average: 0.74, 0.20, 0.06