| Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft |
| Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST |
|
While Dark Darl hints that -- despite admittedly having zero proof in hand -- he believes Linux enthusiasts are attacking his company, there are indications that after a 4-year investigation into the facts of the case, a guilty verdict is expected soon from the European Commission in their investigation of Microsoft. The EC reportedly thinks Sir Bill has been a naughty boy and reports are coming in that his company is going to be declared guilty of anticompetitive behavior:
"While the ruling is still in its draft phase, and details of any final decision are yet to be made public, all the signs are that it won't be going Microsoft's way. The EU's Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, has been touting the draft resolution over the Windows Media Player dispute around various departments in the EC -- which EU commentators believe rarely happens in cases where antitrust cases go in the company's favour." Fines are predicted although it's also possible that continuing negotiations could resolve the matter, according to the Guardian: " . . .leaks from the document to various European media suggest the commission may fine Microsoft and force it to make sweeping changes to its Windows software. Microsoft could be fined up to $3bn, although in practice the figure is likely to be lower.
"The draft ruling says that the failure to grant rivals access to Windows computer code, which runs on over 95 percent of the world's personal computers, is an abuse of Microsoft's dominant position, and it proposes ordering the company to reveal the code to rivals, said one person on condition of anonymity. The Commission is the European Union's (EU's) executive body. On the home front, you'll be amazed and shocked to learn that Microsoft's "independent analysts" on its new "Get the Facts About Windows and Linux" page were commissioned by Microsoft, according to this investigative report by Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
"Microsoft Corp. is touting the results of 'independent analyses' in its latest effort to show corporate decision-makers the merits of its Windows operating system vs. Linux, its biggest open-source competitor. Well, now, if you bump into an aging friend at a restaurant and she introduces you to a man she calls her fiance and he is showering here with attention and compliments all evening, and later you find out she had to pay the man to take her out to dinner and all, how do you feel? That she is pitiful? Obviously. What do you think about her honesty? And how do you take all the praise the man was heaping on her all night? Similarly, if the only way a company can get anyone to say nice things about them is to pay them cold, hard cash, it's just not the same as unsolicited praise. And how much do you trust the "independent" analysis? Here's the detail I like the best: the "Get the Facts on Windows and Linux" site doesn't indicate that the "independent analysts" were commissioned, but if you download the individual reports some reveal it:
"The Web site itself makes no reference to funding for the eight third-party studies it cites. But several of the studies, available for free download from the site, indicate in their text that Microsoft funded them." The other funny part is that apparently some analysts interviewed thought being paid by the company you are analyzing constitutes "independent analysis". How very 1984 Newspeakish. |
|
||||