mike | Shared With: Everyone - Feb 27 2008 | microsoft, legal, eu, antitrust, formats, protocols, windowsEU just levied another $1.3B fine against MS despite this "announcement". What excuse did MS *ever* have for keeping proprietary such interfaces as:
- NTFS file system
- Active Directory
- Exchange ServerNot only is it bad business - it's also anti-competitive. MS: learn to compete on the merits of your products (clients or servers) and NOT on the illegal tying of one to the other.
Microsoft needs to provide the documentation not JUST to a bunch of API's that allow limited interoperability to these products. It also should enable RECPLACEMENT by a 3rd party of either clients or servers. For example, has anyone made a clone of:
- Exchange Server
- Domain Controller
- Exchange ClientWould there not be a large and profitable market for any of these? The fact that no one has, tells me that MS protocols are not yet "open enough".
Quoted: As an immediate next step, starting today Microsoft will openly publish on MSDN over 30,000 pages of documentation for Windows client and server protocols that were previously available only under a trade secret license through the Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program (WSPP) and the Microsoft Communication Protocol Program (MCPP). Protocol documentation for additional products, such as Office 2007 and all of the other high-volume products covered by these principles, will be published in the upcoming months.
- mike | Shared With: Everyone - Dec 23 2007 | microsoft, google, doubleclick, . advertising, antitrust, legal
The attachments are really interesting in this article - especially the Word document here which contains Microsoft's explanation of the online Advertising market and how the Google DoubleClick acquisition would harm competition.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/other/technology/bitsantitrust.doc
Quoted: Bits is a blog about technology, innovation and society from The New York Times.
- mike | Shared With: Everyone - Sep 28 2007 | google, advertising, news, antitrust, legal, microsoft
Google's lawyer tries to what DoubleClick means to Google - but he fails to mention that, while DoubleClick does not create it's own inventory, it's customer base of content providers represents a very substantial portion of ad-revenue inventory on the Internet.
He analogy would be more correct if Fed Ex or UPS were able to a) look inside every package they deliver, and b) insert an advertisement into it.
Quoted: Mr. Drummond asserted that the transaction would not reduce competition because, unlike Google, DoubleClick does not sell advertising. Instead, it provides technology and services to companies seeking to place display ads online, he said.
...
“DoubleClick is to Google what FedEx or U.P.S. is to Amazon.com,” he said.
Related Content from Around Faves
legal
-
How can you find address from phone number? In case you are new to reverse phone number search, here goes.
3 Favers - ClaraSet - 21 hours ago4 Favers
- WilmerStreed - yesterday4 Favers
