Difference between revisions of "Antitrust law"

Revision as of 15:41, 22 June 2010

What this entry documents is not a solution.
This practice may be ineffective or useless in the long term.
ESP's position is that abolition of software patents is the only solution.

History has shown that antitrust law and other laws to protect competition don't work against problems caused by patents.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFYjaG85tgY YouTube video of EU Commissioner for Competition admitting that the EU ruling doesn't prevent Microsoft from demanding royalties]
-===Microsoft===
+NgtHS3  <a href="http://vlyfoemkgdzd.com/">vlyfoemkgdzd</a>, [url=http://eoeljhgfqybh.com/]eoeljhgfqybh[/url], [link=http://mkyfbeuvzhds.com/]mkyfbeuvzhds[/link], http://taquhohqiooh.com/
-Examples involving [[Microsoft]]:
-* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009100908022461 Interview with ECIS's Thomas Vinje and Ashwin van Rooijen]
-*:"''The revised interoperability settlement does not appear to deal with the inadequacies of Microsoft’s standards compliance, unfair pricing practices or other concerns related to patent abuse or standards manipulation.''"
-* 2009-10-10: [http://fsfe.org/news/2009/news-20091008-01.en.html FSFE: Microsoft settlement leaves Free Software in the cold]
-*:"''[[Free Software]] projects, which are often the strongest competitors to the company's offerings, will not be able to use the patent licence proposed by Microsoft.''"
-{{page footer}}
-[[Category:Arguments]]
-[[Category:non-solutions]]
-[[Category:Microsoft]]
-[[Category:Antitrust]]