Skybird
09-16-07, 06:25 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6994631.stm
Okay, consider the technical arguments in that article. This is not meant to become a political bashing of MS, or the EU, I just want to know what to make of the arguments being given, since I cannot judge them myself - too little tech knowledge on my side. Especially what is it they say about these "server interoperability protocols"?
I am split on the issue. I can understand that a company does not wish to share secrets that it had to make massive investements for to build them, and now rivals should be allowed to take benefit of that for free. However, I also understand that this is a wonderful argument for MS to defend it's defacto monopole and keep the market beyond real competition, and harvest the fruits from this, unchallanged, and not needing to share (what would be the case in competition).
I never believed in that old statement that companies wish to have compettiion to revive business, it is craved in stone for me that what companies really dream of - at least in capitalistic ideology - is having a monopole and being able to dictate. That is the pattern by which almost all great corporations are running by over here, wether it be IT, energy, oil, or whatever. Massive price manipulations upwards are the result.
So to judge wether to allow MS to keep it's stuff secret, or for the sake of higher communal interests forcing it to open those secrets, I need to understand the role and importance of that key technology it all is about. Are the competitors right when saying that without opening these protocols, competing solutions cannot cooperate with MS software in a satisfactory manner? "They point to Microsoft's own marketing material - which says Microsoft products "work better together". "
If MS uses this set of data only to protect it's monopole of 95% market shares, it is unacceptable. Monopoles never work for but against the interests of consumers. And the economy is meant to serve the needs of the consumer - not the other way around.
Okay, consider the technical arguments in that article. This is not meant to become a political bashing of MS, or the EU, I just want to know what to make of the arguments being given, since I cannot judge them myself - too little tech knowledge on my side. Especially what is it they say about these "server interoperability protocols"?
I am split on the issue. I can understand that a company does not wish to share secrets that it had to make massive investements for to build them, and now rivals should be allowed to take benefit of that for free. However, I also understand that this is a wonderful argument for MS to defend it's defacto monopole and keep the market beyond real competition, and harvest the fruits from this, unchallanged, and not needing to share (what would be the case in competition).
I never believed in that old statement that companies wish to have compettiion to revive business, it is craved in stone for me that what companies really dream of - at least in capitalistic ideology - is having a monopole and being able to dictate. That is the pattern by which almost all great corporations are running by over here, wether it be IT, energy, oil, or whatever. Massive price manipulations upwards are the result.
So to judge wether to allow MS to keep it's stuff secret, or for the sake of higher communal interests forcing it to open those secrets, I need to understand the role and importance of that key technology it all is about. Are the competitors right when saying that without opening these protocols, competing solutions cannot cooperate with MS software in a satisfactory manner? "They point to Microsoft's own marketing material - which says Microsoft products "work better together". "
If MS uses this set of data only to protect it's monopole of 95% market shares, it is unacceptable. Monopoles never work for but against the interests of consumers. And the economy is meant to serve the needs of the consumer - not the other way around.