| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Official: Microsoft is a monopoly in Israel | |
|
||
| Time: 15:50 EST/20:50 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Antitrust Commissioner Dror Strum has informed Microsoft that he has formally classified the software giant a monopoly in Israel, meaning the company is now subject to a string of limits on its marketing methods inside the country. Strum recently sent a letter to Microsoft's representatives in Israel "reminding" Microsoft that it is liable to all the rules applying to monopolies in Israel, which were included in a draft proposition sent to the company in the past. By classifying Microsoft a monopoly in Israel, the company is now prohibited by law from, among other things, giving its clients benefits in exchange for selling its products rather than its competitors merchandise, or forbidding them to sell competing products, or to link the sale of one of its products with the sale of additional Microsoft products. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:12:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 11/9/2001 4:25:28 PM |
| Good point. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/9/2001 4:51:42 PM |
|
I agree. If a company is supposed to behave differently, then outline exactly what those differences are and codify them in law.
Right now what we get is about 4 million different opinions about how a company should behave. In the US anyway the most vocal all believe the company should behave by rolling over and playing dead. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/10/2001 1:14:33 AM |
|
#9. What article are you responding to?
|
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/10/2001 3:11:23 AM |
|
#12. Interesting because that hasn't been in any of the responses to this article.
No, I believe you are incorrect, he was obviously talking about another article. #11. They do market seperate products with seperate cd's. Microsoft makes many products. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/10/2001 3:04:49 PM |
|
#16. Ok, sounds good.
Now when people universally refuse to buy the Apple distribution, or the one with the Mozilla and Opera crap on it. Then what are you going to whine about? |
| #6 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/10/2001 6:55:46 PM |
|
#19 That sounds like an interesting, but somewhat convoluted world. As you know (I assume you are a programmer) for best performance with COM you'd need to early bind your components - in other words to compile time checking of method calls and so forth on external to your app COM components. This requires the developer at compile time (before the product ships) to know what "engine" the user wants. Secondly, if you're saying have a browser that asks the user use this engine (e.g., Gecko) or that engine (e.g. IE's rendering engine), the engines would both have to expose the same methods and events. Also, they would have to expose them using the same component architecture. Without some serious wrappers, you couldn't use the Sun's HotJava HTML rendering engine in a COM based brower.
This does become easier, of course, in the .NET world, but that presupposes that everyone uses .NET. Even with .NET you still have the problem of public methods being exposed. Take DataGrid controls in the ActiveX world. I suspect at least 5 vendors have some type of grid control. If one of them had a method called DataBind() and another Databind() and another BindData() etc., they would not at all be interoperable from the perspective of a calling application although they may all provide the same functionality. Also, what is this SQL file system in Blackcomb? I'd be interested in learning more about it. The info I have on Blackcomb doesn't mention that. |
| #7 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/10/2001 6:56:32 PM |
|
#15 No offense, but if I understood your post I know you don't know much about programming. One of the issues I have with the Microsoft case is that people that don't know code are judging a matter that is based on code. I don't have much knowledge of financial accounting, so I'm not all too qualified to go to the SEC and tell them how they should change their policies and public filings procedures. In like manner, those who don't know code aren't too qualified to tell software companies how they should make their software.
Regarding "standard applications for standard functionalities" - having an app for Audio/Video, another for HTML, another to browser the file system. If Apple's Quicktime were my default AV player responsible for playing all AV files, then there are types of AV I wouldn't be able to listen to. Just as with Windows Media Player I can't do Real or QuickTime formats. Web pages made for Netscape don't look the same in IE (usually) and vice versa. People already have choice. If I want to listen to or watch QuickTime encoded files, I will buy QuickTime, if I don't, I won't. This is choice. If I want to experience Windows Media Format via Windows Media Player, I'll use it, othewise I'll choose another. For intance I don't like notepad or wordpad that come with windows, so I use EditPad. I have a choice already! #18 Do you really think he is just trying to pick a fight? I currently have three four web browsers installed on my laptop. I choose which to use when I want to view webpages. I have up to three media players installed too - Windows Media Player, Real, and QuickTime. For the formats they have in common - wav, avi, etc. - I choose which one I want to use. I know folks that use WindowBlinds because they don't like Microsoft's UI. Again, that is choice that the consumer has. Oh, and this is choice on the Windows platform. Yep, you guessed it, there are other operating systems out there that you can use too. "What people do with that choice is beyond my caring. " I don't think you really believe that. Twenty years ago, there wasn't much of a software company over at Microsoft. It was people buying their products and not the competing products that created the Microsoft of today. That is choice of the consumer. You disagree with the choices that consumers made in allowing Microsoft to have the position it has in the market today, and you want to change that. In other words, choice were made and you care very much because you disagree with them. Microsoft never forced me to buy a PC with Windows, I chose it over a Mac or a PC with O/S2 (I'm talking about back in the day before Microsoft was big.). |
| #8 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/11/2001 6:54:26 PM |
| #22 I'll second that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:12:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
