|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:42 AM EST |
In view of their past and continuing behaviour, I fail to see why the maximum
fine was not imposed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not enough! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:06 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:56 AM EST |
Shouldn't it be 561 BILLION euros?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:01 AM EST |
Pocket change for MS, so why so little?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:23 AM EST |
The fine is in the region where mere mortals can't even
grasp it. $US
731 million...
US one dollar bills are are 2.61 inches wide and 6.14
inches long. They are .0043 inches thick and weigh 1 gram.
731 million
US dollar bills would weigh about 806 (short)
tons, or 731 metric tons
(tonnes).
Stacked up on top of each other, they would make a stack
50
miles high! (80 kilometers).
Stretched out end to end they would reach
nearly 1879
miles (3,024 kilometers). If you laid them out end to end
all
along the highway from New York to San Antonio, Texas,
you would still have
$57 to spend when you got there!
Now imagine you are Steve Ballmer,
explaining all this to
the Board of Directors, on top of explaining the dismal
failure of the Windows Phone, The Surface Tablet, pathetic
Windows 8 uptake,
and the abysmal failure to attract,
recruit, or promote talented individuals
into the top ranks
at Microsoft... Come on now, have a heart! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 12:37 PM EST |
:-) man that's a big fine!
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:14 PM EST |
To whom it may concern:
I write according to a concern I have that
appears to be lacking in the media articles on the recent fine applied to
Microsoft for the lack of browser choice that Microsoft had committed
to.
I hope that it's just an oversight on the part of the media for not
detailing the issue.
In the event the decision did not include the
solution outlined below it is my hope that your decision is still open for
application of additional corrective measures and that you consider the
following.
The original agreement between the Commission and Microsoft
contained a requirement for Microsoft to provide consumers with a choice of
browser for a period of 60 months. This would be 5 years ending Dec 2014 if the
Dec 16, 2009 date is used from the point the commission made
the committment legally binding. I would hope the true starting point would
be when the browser choice was actually made available which appears to be March
2010. That would place the original end date at March 2015.
Microsoft
failed to provide that choice for a period of 14 months. 14 months is 23% of 60
months. That's almost 1/4 of the time Microsoft had committed to in which they
failed to comply with their committment.
It would be reasonably equitable
if the end date that Microsoft had committed to got pushed back for a period of
at least 14 months to Mar 16, 2015 (or July 2016 depending on the official
starting date) so that the original time frame for consumers browser choice is
fully complied with.
This - of course - should be on top of the already
decided fine.
Thank you for your time.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
