I was just browsing CNN when I came across this horrific story
Unfortunately, Microsoft are basing their defence on the case on what’s good for consumers instead of basing it upon morality & their rights.
With that kind of appeasement, no wonder anti-trust watchdogs feel so emboldened to take on companies.
“We respect the Commission’s authority”
What a grand capitulation.
I wonder what the EU hopes to accomplish by attacking the most successful software development company in history?
What’s next? The EU suing automakers for integrating rear view mirrors and trunks into their vehicles.(and thereby snuffing out third party add-on mirrors and trunks)
:pimp:
Ah yes, Europe is coming after its piece of the pie. After what the US did to Microsoft, could the world’s most sophisticated and nuanced parasites be far behind? Microsoft obviously didn’t get there with bribes in hand quickly enough. They ought to have consulted with Saddam in this matter; he knew how to purchase their favor.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is just one of a long line of businesses to essentially cave in to the ticks of the world. Once you grant the government’s right to your money, you are lost. Just once, I’d like to see someone stand up and call this looting what it is. Once they accept that the government has a right stick their collective pincers into the body of a business, they may as well just strip off and let the blood-suckers have at it. “Yeah, but . . .” isn’t an argument likely to save your hide.
Disgusting.
Miscrosoft’s approach is not disgusting.
They have a contractual obligation to try to make money for their shareholders that is what they are doing.
They have no “Moral obligation” to fight the good fight beyond what they feel is worth it.
Using emotional invectives like that against microsoft seems to be a case of victim blaming.
It’s disgusting things like this that make me wish Microsoft would close up shop: stop selling in Europe altogether. If they (the europeans) don’t like the product the way it is, they don’t have to buy it. Let them use Linux along with India.
Microsoft’s approach is disgusting. It’s called the sanction of the victim.
Microsoft has a contractual obligation to keep looters from its property. Sanctioning their looting is a violation of it.
By sanctioning the looters, by naming them moral, Microsoft abdicates all the good that it stands for.
The invective was not emotional as primary; its irresistable logic drives the emotion, as in general it should. This is in fact a case of victim-blaming, because this is indeed a case of the victim making possible its own victimhood.
Well said, feldblum.
I happened to have owned a few shares of Microsoft before the government attacked. I watched the value of my shares plummet. Was I victimized? You betcha. Will I be victimized again by this latest raid? Nope. After the way Microsoft behaved during the anti-trust trials, I sold my shares. They didn’t protect my investment at all. They gave it away when they excepted the government’s premise that they had a right to go after them in the first place.
I also had a few dollars in Martha Stewart’s little enterprise. The government came along and killed that as well.
I do wish the government would stop looking after “the little guy”. I am a very small investor, so I suppose they consider me a little guy. No one asked if I wanted protection, and until the government intervened in these businesses, I needed none. Who do I go to for protection from my self-appointed protectors? While Ms. Stewart had nothing to do with her persecution, and did nothing to abet it, Microsoft cannot claim the same. They’ve now entered into the blackmail game played by thugs all over the world. I find that thoroughly disgusting.
Microsoft has a contractual obligation to keep looters from its property. Sanctioning their looting is a violation of it.
Where is that written into their contract? Microsoft’s obligations are to make as much money for its stockholders as legally possible.
“By sanctioning the looters, by naming them moral, Microsoft abdicates all the good that it stands for.”
the purpose of a business is not to “stand for good” the purpose of a business is to make money. I suppose the argument might stand for particular individuals within the business, but they haven’t been named by anyone on this post, so that argument has not yet occuree.
“This is in fact a case of victim-blaming, because this is indeed a case of the victim making possible its own victimhood”
Microsoft could’ve filed a brief saying up is down and it wouldnt have mattered, the fine would have still been there.
The “good” and “making money” are not mutually exclusive. I would say that they ended up losing money because they didn’t stand up for their own good – their right to make money. When they did this with the US Justice department, they guaranteed that the EU would go after them as well.
Further, I’m not so sure that they would have lost by waging the battle on principle. Even if they had, however, my feelings toward the company would be very different. I would not have sold my shares, for one thing, because I think it is important to stand by such people. Losing my investment wouldn’t have hurt nearly as much under those circumstances. Just because you will absolutely lose such a fight doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go into battle.
I suppose the argument might stand for particular individuals within the business, but they haven’t been named by anyone on this post, so that argument has not yet occuree.
??? I thought this would have been obvious. First and foremost, Bill Gates, and then there is another name within the link provided, CEO Steve Ballmer who is quoted by myself and other posters clearly responded to his comments as well.
I don’t think anyone here will give much regard to your comments on the purpose of business. The reason is that Objectivism does not accept compartmentalization as a valid aspect of philosophy. Hence, concern only for making money isolated in regard to the means to that end, pride, and why one makes money will not be accepted either.
Additionally, I don’t think Microsoft’s stockholders will appreciate their company losing 14% of its expected annual income.(especially when it just rolls over and takes it.)
Martha $tewart has earned the sign of the dollar, in success and in adversity. Microsoft flops in adversity, sanctioning the bureaucrats’ looting of everything it has earned, its pride foremost.
Old Geezer, everything Micro$oft has done in the past has been illegal. Antitrust is a shady non-system of non-law forbidding everything to everybody except what bureaucrats at whim permit to their favorite, complying victims. And Micro$oft used to be belligerent as a victim.
The only way to make money is to make it ethically (non-aggression) and to make it rationally (virtue). The primary business of any corporation is the good: to create. The worst evil any corporation can commit is to admit that to create is the evil.
The EU expects Microsoft to obey: “give us billions; roll over; die.” Not only is Microsoft obeying, but it is doing so with its tail wagging. Rearden obeyed; but when he stopped wagging his tail, he understood the monstrosity of his crime, and understood the contortions of claiming any moral right to his metal.
“I do wish the government would stop looking after “the little guy”. I am a very small investor, so I suppose they consider me a little guy. No one asked if I wanted protection, and until the government intervened in these businesses, I needed none. Who do I go to for protection from my self-appointed protectors? While Ms. Stewart had nothing to do with her persecution, and did nothing to abet it, Microsoft cannot claim the same. They’ve now entered into the blackmail game played by thugs all over the world. I find that thoroughly disgusting.”
Old Salt,
That’s the makings of a pretty good letter to the editor.
CT
" I would say that they ended up losing money because they didn’t stand up for their own good – their right to make money. When they did this with the US Justice department, they guaranteed that the EU would go after them as well."
You are potentially correct. Assuming for a moment that you are correct about the woulda coulda shoulda’s this still does not make them “disgusting”
“Further, I’m not so sure that they would have lost by waging the battle on principle”
apparently the army of lawyers felt differently.
Exactly. Lawyers feel. They have no principles. They don’t know what principles are like.
Geezer: The lawyers lost anyway, so what’s your point?
"Exactly. Lawyers feel. They have no principles. They don’t know what principles are like."yf
I hope you know some that are different. If not I can post some links.
Geezer: The lawyers lost anyway, so what’s your point?OS
My point is that they coulda lost much bigger.
Geezer: By “bigger” I assume you mean they could have lost more money. Well, they’re losing more money now, over half a billion dollars more. I think they lost much more than money by not making a principled stand. We all lost “bigger.”
I wonder what the EU hopes to accomplish by attacking the most successful software development company in history?
No one has directly answered this question yet, although oldsalt hinted at the answer in the post immediately following, and perhaps no one felt the need to do so because the answer is so obvious–so much so, in fact, that I think that this was probably asked rhetorically.
Just in case though, what they hope to accomplish is to openly rob that company, because they have seen by its behavior in dealing with legal persecutions in the past that they have a good shot at getting away with it. They hope to commit plain theft, get some loot now, and long-range consequences be damned.
They want to play Robin Hood.
It is absolutely sickening that this is largely uncontroversial, and that most people in fact applaud their actions. And it is disgusting that Microsoft has helped to make this possible.
Ash, I’ll go even further. Considering Microsoft’s reaction to the EU fine, I would say that they have moved from being a victim in this and have moved on to overt complicity in the looting of their stockholder’s shares.