Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Humorous, but this is exactly what we should be fearing. If this decision is used as a precedent, imagine the implications.
The precedent is: abuse your monopoly powers in the EU and you will get slapped. I very much like this precedent. I am a fan of Neelie Kroes' work in going after companies that are anti-competitive and damaging to the free market.
For Windows--or any operating system--a list of all programs that could possibly compete with those included in the OS would have to be listed.
No, that is simply the punishment (this time) for Microsoft. This punishment is in no way precedent for any company that simply ships OSes and abides by (EU) law.
+1, Funny
For those who do not get the joke: go here and search for 'No synthesizers'.
If person A writes a book and person B makes copies of that book and distributes them, person B infringes upon person A's ability to profit from that book.
Infringe upon someone's ability to make a profit? And that is illegal? It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
If person A relies upon proceeds from that book in order to pay rent, person B has effectively cheated person A out of rent money.
So? Person A has chosen a very bad business model. He should try something else to make the rent.
In this case, person A should have some legal recourse. Person A should be able to sue for relief.
So if I were to sell bread for 10 a loaf and my next door neighbor sells the same bread for 2 a loaf, he infringes on my ability to make a profit and I can sue him for that? Is that your point?
You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
Do you mean to say that we should pay for the sunrise every morning? Or that we should pay for the O2 we consume when we breathe? And 'own'? You seem to be confusing property (which you can own) with ideas and stories. Ideas and stories are not property. Copyright does not make stories 'owned' by anyone.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood