I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

[aneeshm]

Here I'm with Asher . The EU decision was idiotic and unethical , and , in the long run , irrelevant .

This is one of the biggest double standards - Linux can come with five terminals , ten text editors , four media players , and two office suites , all at a total price of zero . Completely predatory pricing . Yet when MS tries the same , they are reviled as "t3h 3vil m0n0p0li5ts !!!!!!11!!!!1!!" .

[Mr. Harley]

The biggest problem with the EU decision is not the WMP issue, but forcing them to release code for some of the MS Server products. While I dislike the predatory and monopolisitc business practices of MS, forcing them to release code makes me, well, nervous. It flies in the fact of copyright and patent protections. Forcing them to release the appropriate data so that others can write programs that tie into MS prodcuts - fine. Release code? That makes me very uncomfortable.

[Agathon]

The law doesn't force anyone to buy it, it just compels Microsoft to give customers the choice. So, like most Asher threads, this is much ado about nothing.

[Agathon]

Hey didn't some doofus say that Microsoft has to obey the laws of the countries it operates in, even if they are stupid and evil?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hey didn't some doofus say that Microsoft has to obey the laws of the countries it operates in, even if they are stupid and evil?

Yup, which is why MS obviously complied, rather than leaving Europe.

It doesn't change the fact that the decision was remarkably stupid, as the people who will actively choose a WMP-less Windows vs. one with WMP for the same price can be counted on one hand -- internationally.

The EU spent a lot of time bickering about this, and it's all so pointless. No one ever sat to think about how the consumers are affected, it appears.

I guess that's a secondary concern to trying to screw with the big, bad, American corporation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The law doesn't force anyone to buy it, it just compels Microsoft to give customers the choice. So, like most Asher threads, this is much ado about nothing.

And, like I predicted, consumers really aren't getting the choice because it makes no sense for the OEMs to offer the crippled Windows to users.

The product is available, no one is buying it.

There's a solution if I ever saw one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Yup, which is why MS obviously complied, rather than leaving Europe.

It doesn't change the fact that the decision was remarkably stupid, as the people who will actively choose a WMP-less Windows vs. one with WMP for the same price can be counted on one hand -- internationally.

The EU spent a lot of time bickering about this, and it's all so pointless. No one ever sat to think about how the consumers are affected, it appears.

I guess that's a secondary concern to trying to screw with the big, bad, American corporation.

They whined and *****ed about this one. One wishes that they had shown similar spine when dealing with the Chinese.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

And, like I predicted, consumers really aren't getting the choice because it makes no sense for the OEMs to offer the crippled Windows to users.

The product is available, no one is buying it.

There's a solution if I ever saw one.

It is. That is as much as the court can do. They can't ban Microsoft from selling it, but the alternative is there now, and no-one can complain about Microsoft media player violating anti-trust legislation, because it is no longer compulsory.

I find it funny that you have wasted a thread about this. The court got exactly what it wanted, so you're accusations fall flat.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would buy Windows without a media player. I always have to try to untangle it from everything.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It is. That is as much as the court can do. They can't ban Microsoft from selling it, but the alternative is there now, and no-one can complain about Microsoft media player violating anti-trust legislation, because it is no longer compulsory.

I find it funny that you have wasted a thread about this. The court got exactly what it wanted, so you're accusations fall flat.

The court wanted to provide an equal footing for MS' competitors like Real.

If they didn't care if anyone bought it, why did the Court make a huge deal out of it when it was called "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition"?

The ruling changes absolutely nothing, because its -- surprise surprise -- impractical.

That one word, impractical, is such a foreign concept of governments and academics...

[Agathon]

The court wanted to provide an equal footing for MS' competitors like Real.

It has on the only conception of "equal" that they could enforce. Stopping MS from selling it would be illegal.

If they didn't care if anyone bought it, why did the Court make a huge deal out of it when it was called "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition"?

Because they wanted to make people aware that it was now possible to buy it?

The ruling changes absolutely nothing, because its -- surprise surprise -- impractical.

Yes it does. People now have an opportunity that they didn't have before. That's changed something - i.e. what the law was designed to change. That's the point. The law did its job.

That one word, impractical, is such a foreign concept of governments and academics...

You're on a roll today. Two threads in which you've demonstrated your complete misunderstanding of a topic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It has on the only conception of "equal" that they could enforce. Stopping MS from selling it would be illegal.

That's pretty odd. They can force MS to modify and remove and cripple their software, but can't force them to modify pricing or whether it's sold? All of the above should be illegal.

Because they wanted to make people aware that it was now possible to buy it?

What the hell does that have to do with the name choice?

My point was MS originally named it "Windows XP Reduced Media Edition". The Court told them they couldn't name it that, it would deter potential buyers...so it became "Windows XP N".

Yes it does. People now have an opportunity that they didn't have before. That's changed something - i.e. what the law was designed to change. That's the point. The law did its job.

Where do they have that opportunity? The whole point is no one is offering the product for sale, ie...they don't have the opportunity.

You're on a roll today. Two threads in which you've demonstrated your complete misunderstanding of a topic.

Which is more of a statement about you than anything else, as I chose the topic as this is my thread.

[Agathon]

Where do they have that opportunity? The whole point is no one is offering the product for sale, ie...they don't have the opportunity.

But they can offer it if they want to - that's the point. Stop trying to change the subject because you have posted (another) silly thread.

[Boris Godunov]

The fact that the court could prohibit them from naming the software what they wanted is outrageous. It's not as if they named it "The Turderific Version the Dumbass EU Wants Us to Release." If the whole point was to appease those folks who want Windows but don't want Media Player, wouldn't "Reduced Media" make them more inclined to buy it?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The fact that the court could prohibit them from naming the software what they wanted is outrageous. It's not as if they named it "The Turderific Version the Dumbass EU Wants Us to Release." If the whole point was to appease those folks who want Windows but don't want Media Player, wouldn't "Reduced Media" make them more inclined to buy it?

A terrible outrage. The court didn't fall for MS crap.