On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Andy Sy wrote: > Manny wrote: > > > Guess what? That's irrelevant. Fooling the US courts on compliance is one > > thing, but the ruling is still the same. M$ engaged in monopolistic > > action. And that's why the EU got them too. > > I don't disagree with this... > > > The bottom line is that emrce and extend works for M$ and they use it to > > destroy competiton. > > ...but because the embrace portion of 'embrace and extend' benefis both > end-users and the developer community, it is a legitimate way of winning > the market share game (i.e. 'destroying the competition') and is not a > tactic companies should be penalized for engaging in. > > Companies are free to 'extend' at their own risk - that's known as innovation > and everyone does that. In case you didn't realize, Netscape practiced an even > less savoury form - from a technical POV - of 'embrace and extend' wrt the > HTML standards. Redhat (finally, something Linux related) embraces and extends > too (to my disgust, btw...). > > In conclusion, MS be may guilty of anticompetitive tactics, but bundling and > 'embrace extend' _per se_ cannot be considered such. The lawyers have to throw
Yes it does, if the specified MS extentions to what is generally considered open technology (open meaning well established RFCs like LDAP, etc) are made proprietary by MS and subsequent attempts to emulate it by open source groups are thrown into the litigation division. -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
