[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why? Their monopoly gives them the ability to dictate a de facto
> standard that will kill off anyone incapable or unwilling to comply with
> it. That, my friend, is what makes Microsoft's embrace and extend tactics
> anticompetitive
Mind you, I don't like MS tactics anymore than the rest and I don't want
this to be seen as a defense of their part, but I'm interested in the
principles behind calling 'embrace and extend' anticompetitive.
Are you now saying that a company like RedHat or Netscape can extend well
established standards and not be considered anticompetitive, but Microsoft
can't? At what market share/size does a company have to have before its
extension of standards becomes regarded as anticompetitive?
By the way, have you noticed that contrary to the stated fear, Microsoft's
extensions of standards have not caused much harm or seen wide adoption?
This is partly because the presence of good open source alternatives that
people want to interoperate with make it unattractive for them to use
proprietary extensions.
--
reply-to: a n d y @ n e t f x p h . c o m
--
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
