timmah said:
I agree that the offer was made because MS thought the decision would go against them. In my opinion this is because MS new that, even if they were actually not breaking any law, the EU is so stacked against them that there was no point defending against the charges. I think only judging the results is very dangerous, as the 'ends justify the means' argument is the one used by pretty much every dictator and tyrannical government in world history. I'm not saying the EU is that by any stretch, but this mindset is a dangerous and slippery slope that can be misused when (not if) the wrong people come to power. I disagree that the browser ballot had any affect on MS losing market share, the trend line did not change when the ballot went into place, nor did IE's decline slow at all when the browser ballot was not working with SP1, so there was no effect on market share trend lines based on the browser ballot, meaning the ballot was not necessary to ensure fair competition. The market actually did this regardless of any outside meddling. In fact, the largest factor in IE's accelerated decline based on trend lines was the introduction and growing popularity of Google's Chrome browser. I believe the justice system is for both justice and for deterrance of future crimes. Where I disagree is that, even after reading about the law in question, I don't see any case that an actual crime was committed to begin with in this case. |
When you say 'The EU is so stacked against them', what do you mean exactly? Are you trying to say that it will be impossible to find 12 Jurors who are not blinded by hatred of MS? I think that is a little unreasonable. Go ask anyone you know (who doesn't frequent tech forums) to rate MS on a 1-10 with 1 being hate and 10 beign love, they will all say 5, 6 or 7. This will be equally true in the EU.
As for the "Judging things off results not actions" makes me Hitler, that's far from the truth. The problem with Hitler was not that he took immoral means towards moral ends. The problem was that he took immoral means towards immoral ends. Take for example, the killing of millions of Jews. That is an immoral means that takes us towards a worse world.
Compare and contrast that to a situation, lets say some German general noticed that Hitler was bat-shit insane, and staged a coup de tat to overthrow the democratically elected Hitler from power. Immoral means to a moral end.
A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. - Leon Trotsky.
The crime commited was using a monopoly in one field to create a monopoly in another field, which is covered under anti-competitive parctices. That is a crime, just the same as theft, murder and rape.