Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Appeals Anti-Trust to Supreme Court
wicket2001 writes "The AP is reporting that Microsoft has appealed their anti-trust case to the Supreme Court.
Microsoft sent the petition to the high court two days before the case was to be sent to a new judge to decide what penalty the Redmond, Wash., firm should face."
"YEP, of course conversely, the current "liberal" Justices who have always been true blue on equal protection and Federal Control over the States also suddenly decided to vote against the positions that they've always taken before. "
..a proven anti-antitrust, pro business country club Republican. "
Well that just proves my point. If you go and re-read my post you will see that I said the supreme court acted in a irrational and partisan matter. Apparently you agree with me on this one.
"Judge Jackson who found that MS was a monopoly and ordred the MS Breakup is (drum roll, please)
OK. But last I checked he was not on the supreme court. What does this have to do with the supreme court?
"the CCA panel judges who upheld about 90-95% of Jackson's Findings are all.....conservative Republicans (all appointed by Ronnie RayGunz, BTW)..."
Well I don't think they are the supreme court either. Are they?
"educes real problems to "Us versus Them"...which is a big reason things don't change very quickly or very effectively here in the USA "
It is us vs them. If you want to roll over and play dead that's fine, it's your choice. But it's time we woke up to the fact that there is a civil war going on in this country. The rich against everybody else, whites against the blacks, the republicans against the democrats. Unfortunately I am on the losing side and the reason is that the we are wimps. You never hear of an abortion doctor killing a priest but republicans kill at least one or two doctors a year. It's about time we fought back. It's time to drag some republicans behind a truck till they get dismembered and put the fear of god into them the way they have been putting the fear of god on to us.
"BONUS ROUND: Guess what political party the Gates Family as a whole have been registered to for the last 3 or 4 decades???? Incl BOTH of Bill's parents..HINT, doesn't start with an "R" "
Well then he'll lose in the supreme court. If they have a chance to disrupt democratic fund raising they will do it.
War is necrophilia.
You have no idea how bad off you are compared to if there was a functioning market happening there...
And if nobody tells me, chances are I'll never know. Users in the real world simply don't see any of those problems with IE. (Outlook scripting bugs and design flaws are NOT IE's fault.)
Honestly, how could you consider that post flamebait? That was a reasonably intelligent comment...... even if it disagreed with your (the moderator's) personal philosophy. Slashdot would be completely uninteresting if all people did was agree with each other!
I ustLVEvlan&# 97;tor's site! Epl he "fah" setn,r
 1;I eaned to cu tt f ofn ld hir tose as har enmen! O ndthe nceparty ptos
O cors, dont fort o rea vladintor's !ere ouwil diovr o truy dict it i decid tod onteek
 0;.. haea iza pry? A ahpart? o t all wthallo yor fien? Hvea sleevern albs o the pone
Inst, iyoaven't heed out vladiatr's site, y don know watyo'remissn 3;
Obviously you have no clue about what happened then. The FSC passed down several decisions, some favoring Gore and some favoring Bush; they rejected Gore's motion to have Miami-Dade continue it's halted recount, which may have cost Gore the election.
The notion that they "rewrote" the law is idiocy; it's their job to interpret the law, and they did it to the best of their ability. If the US Supreme Court felt that the recount standards were unfair, the proper course would be to send a ruling back to the Florida Supreme Court ordering new standards.
They were given a choice; they could clinch a victory for their side by selling out their judicial integrity, and they decided that getting Bush into the White House was worth it.
It is certainly the Florida Supreme Court that showed disgusting partiality in our election, not SCOTUS
If the situation had been reversed, and Gore had the slight majority, the US Supreme Court would have ruled in Bush's favor. Whatever else people think about their decision (even people who agree with it), I think that's pretty clear. Whoever believes otherwise is so mind-numbingly stupid as to defy belief.
IsLOE vldinaor' ite! Especially hefas" scti whrI ar c te botmo f anolhrt to se s a ai enanen Oh, ad e "danc party" poto!
Ocose don't orget t rd vliaor'semails! Hreyuildi&# 115;cvrhowtruy difiuli isto eidewa t o on thewekds...ha 01;aizz prty? Afas pa? Go ote ml ith uiends? Hav alepovn
 0; allbos tephone
In sot,if ou havn' chek out lanato' se u dn'tknow wat y'emiing
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
no, I like free stuff, but I also want CHOICE. MS has the ability to raise the bar for anyone wanting to enter the browser market. Or any other market for that matter by investing tons of cash and taking a loss which is how they destroy competition. The Browser is the least of my concerns, it's more the way that they design tools that will only work with other MS tools although standards they supposedly adhere to should make these tools work with any OS or Browser.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
"What they are trying to do is create enough delays that the other side will be willing to negotiate the degree of the applicable penalties."
Yes, M$ does want the ability to extend settlement negotiations while they release XP w/o any delay due to additional legal wrangling, BUT, that's only half the story....It's also about being "hard core" (as BillG sees it) and as shown by a # of books about MS/DOJ.
From the original Apple "look and feel" lawsuit through the Go lawsuit to the Netscape action, M$ will always charge you hard to see if you blink....
There's a new team in charge of the M$ lawsuit at the Dept of Just-ice and M$ is playing them, like M$played their predecessors.
so, for example, last week/so we have all sorts of announcements loudly trumpted about M$ "loosening up" control of the Desktop, and then M$ "leaks" info about XP doing this or that,
then an "offical" M$ spokesgeek will then deny the rumours they want to kill and ignore the rumours they want to spread....
ALL this is psych out material to FUD their opponents and jerk around the mainstream media, who at this point, they hate even worse than they hate Klein/Jackson...
somewhere at Rancho Redmond, in Bldg 8, somebody is deriving great enjoyment from all of this attention and speculation (SA, "Henry Ford".
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
That would be awful. There is nothing I can think of that's worse than a judge owing anyone anything. Having gotten their position, I can't imagine that they're so foolish as to believe they owe favors.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What are we talkin here? 2-4 days or a whole weeks profit? Nope. No monoply here.
(btw...I agree with most of what you've said. Ignorance accounts for a few of them, but most are intentional acts.)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
The SCOUS has shown itself to be extremely irrational and partisan. When the election was on the line the same justices who had for years voted to further states rights went against states rights. The same justices who had rejected numerous equal protection arguments when it came to criminal punishment suddenly embraced equal protection. Not only that but they had the nerve to state that this ruling should not be ever used as a precedence in further equal protection cases because they knew that some democrat was going to make them look like idiots by immediately bringing an equal protection case up and watch them squirm like the snails that they are.
In short. Unless you can prove definatively that Bill Gates is a democrat or that he gives more money to democrats then republicans there is no way he will lose in the supreme court.
War is necrophilia.
The AP is stuck between a rock and a hard place in the Internet era. As a content provider, they would like to be able to sell stories, photos and packages to any potential client, including Yahoo, AOL, etc. On the other hand, as a non-profit cooperative, the AP can be controlled by a block of smaller local newspapers, who need to maintain their readership. This is the fine line that the AP has been walking on for the last few years -- it's anybody's guess as to what their ultimate business strategy will be.
In any event, thanks to those that posted the Yahoo story link. I still find it hard to believe that /. has such poor editorial review for the simplest things! (although I guess I shouldn't be)
- Richie
"The SCO(t)US has shown itself to be extremely irrational and partisan."
..a proven anti-antitrust, pro business country club Republican.
YEP, sure have.
Both this Rehnquist Court and the prior Brennan and Douglas Courts. Lots and lots of controversial decisions. EG, Brown v Board of Education in 1954..only took 90 years for the Supremes to decide that maybe Lincoln was right.
"When the election was on the line the same justices who had for years voted to further states rights went against states rights. The same justices who had rejected numerous equal protection arguments when it came to criminal punishment suddenly embraced equal protection."
YEP, of course conversely, the current "liberal" Justices who have always been true blue on equal protection and Federal Control over the States also suddenly decided to vote against the positions that they've always taken before.
"Unless you can prove definatively that Bill Gates is a democrat or that he gives more money to democrats then republicans there is no way he will lose in the supreme court."
of all the massively ignorant/stupid things you've said this takes the cake
Judge Jackson who found that MS was a monopoly and ordred the MS Breakup is (drum roll, please)
the CCA panel judges who upheld about 90-95% of Jackson's Findings are all.....conservative Republicans (all appointed by Ronnie RayGunz, BTW)...
The current Supremes, theoretically "Conservative" have UPHELD Roe vs Wade (perhaps the biggest "hot button" issue there is for alleged "conservatives") TWENTY-TWO times.
BTW, do you have any clue who appointed the US Supreme Court Judges who voted ***AGAINST*** the majority Florida Decision? "Scooter Souter" for example? Have you a clue???
you might not be stupid, but you sure don't know what you're talking about....
if you want to criticize the Florida Presidential Decision fine, there's a lot there to criticize and i sure have done so, BUT,
...masquerading your political idealogy as "fact" is both intellectually dishonest and reduces real problems to "Us versus Them"...which is a big reason things don't change very quickly or very effectively here in the USA
BONUS ROUND: Guess what political party the Gates Family as a whole have been registered to for the last 3 or 4 decades???? Incl BOTH of Bill's parents..HINT, doesn't start with an "R"
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
IjusV vldiato's ste Espcay h "fsh" secton, eelan d to t te boto offof noldshit ouseas a harhancn& #116;! Ond the"ne pat" phtos
Of ourse,'tfo& #103;t tore vldaor's emls He yowil dioer ho ruy ifficutit is oecieha todoon the wkeds...ve apzzaay? A as ay? Go tohe al with oyoufriends Ha sleepovernal byso the phe?
nshort if u ave'tceke&# 111;utlinator'sst e, yun' knw what you'msg!
Ijut LOVE ladinator's se! Especayhe "fh" ectionwhre Ilerd to u hebottmof a o h t use as air ehancemet!Ohand 2;thnc part hoos!
;ls Here ll dicovr oruly difiul it dcidehatd&# 111; on thwekes. vea pizza pry? Aspy?& #32;o te mall wh all of yur fids vea pove ancl boynth phoe
Oourse,d'&# 32;forgo ed ldnaose
In ht f y haven'tcked u vlanators te you don't knhtou re mn
You still don't understand. ...
Judges are there to explain and clarify laws.
Every decision they make will be influenced consciously or NOT by their personal believes.
After all, we do not hire robots there but people with their own set of morals
and we WANT them to think and decide using their best judgment.
As far as SC ruling during last election
They did what they thought was right.
I , personally thought they did the right thing.
If they went the other way I would be bitching now and you would be defending their decision.
Who is to say you are right and I am wrong ?
Hey, if anyone gets to be considered 'longterm injured' by MS practices, it'd be me. I use a Mac and write GPLed open source software for it, so most of what they've taken from, or starved out of, the market has come from me and people like me. Have them give me, oh, $10,000 :)
Well, in regrads to my point about the California power companies, the cause of the continued brown-outs is because the general population whines that they can't take another rate hike, and so the price is legislated. This puts the power companies in an impossible situation, because they aren't getting the money to make more power, and can't charge enough to help discourage use. The original cause may or may not have been due to over-regulation. On your question about why I, as a consumer, rather than a business owner, would prefer a totally free-market economy; an example would be minimum wage: Small fast food restaruants are required to pay employees a certain amount, that is much more than what they are doing is worth. If there were people willing to work for $2/hour at mcdonalds, or a sweatshop type operation, why force the business to pay more? What it does is both raise the price of the goods, and it also eliminates jobs, because maybe a company could afford someone for $2/hour, but not minimum wage. Rather than helping that person, as minimum wage laws are supposed to, he gets no job at all, as opposed to the $2/hour he would otherwise have.
Nice try with www.meigsaction.net.
How come you, with all this "Consumers First", anti-corporations and other bullshi,t are AGAINST people having access to one of the best places in Chicago simply because selected few can fly their asses out of there ( most of them are CEOs anyway..)
I could go on, but if you've visited http://www.meigsaction.net/ you know this already, and are just trolling.
Finally, as to the rediculous false dichotomy you have presented, being pro-consumer does not equal being anti-business, nor does being pro-business equal being pro-corporatism. Corporatism does not equal capitalism any more than monopolism equals business.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Mocroshaft (DOW: MSUX) should be forced to fix it's security holes, remove script handeling from it's e-mail clients, and generally clean up it's act when it comes to the holes in its OS and software. How many Mac virii/worms do you hear about? What about UNIX/Linux? Virtually NO BSD problems. Microshaft (NASDAQ: MSHT) looks to be the butt of every joke (aka Virii) and almost invite the problems. Forget making users keep IE, forget the blocking that XP is said to do to competitor's software. FIX THE DAMNED THING ALREADY! Then you can worry about the anti-trust violations.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
I think you are making his point. The judges should be impartial but the entire justice system is corrupt and partisan (not to mention racist) from the lowest level to the highest.
It bothers me equally that the FSC was voting alongside democrats and the SCOUS was voting with the republicans. I feel sorry for any republican whose case sits with the FSC and even worse for any poor democrat who has the misfortune to be heard by the SCOUS because they have no further appeals.
War is necrophilia.
I jus E naor's  ;sie Espealythe"fash 2;ion re I lrned to ctthe to o fold sirt to aa hairaeent! Oh andt"dacear y" photos
;ditor's site, u dn't nowt u'r mssing!
fouse, dt fg oread vaiator' maisH yowilscoe& #114; howtruydiffictit& #32;i to ee what t onte wekd.. ave a pza aty? A fas py? G tothe ml wthll oou d? Hveaslepove andcall boys n the phone
I sor ifo avent ecdouvla
Egads.. its the return of the Evil one,
the Dark Jedi Knight.
".. but Pennfield, I'm your father..."
"Oh yeah? Whatever happened to Teller?"
All that aside, seven supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans. Whatever political favors were owed were paid back in full last December
Justices don't have to pay back any favors, since once they're in, they're in for life. The parties, Congress and President have no leverage at all, just a hope of payback. What future positions of power or influence can they be offered beyond that of the Court? A Justice's fear is only from the other Justices.
SCOTUS history is full of appointees who were supposed to toe the party line of those who appointed them, only to severely disappoint. Just look at Sandra Day O'Connor for an example: Reagan thought she'd be ultra-conservative, and now she's usually the swing vote.
I ju LOVE vldinaor' ie! speiall he "fah" seion,whee I learned to ct hebotom of f o rttous s a irnem& #101;nt! , and than pay" phot!
; Here will iscve how truy fiul i io deid whtodo n e eeds.. av aiza aty? fshparty Go toh mll wtaofyo 7;r friends? aea sleepve andcall boysotepone
Of coe, do' oreto red ladinto'seal
I hot if ou hvn hcd otvlaintor ste, you don kn wtyormis 5;n
Ijust LOVE vaintor' site Espcal the"fahct&# 111;n er I leaned touth oo&# 32;o ol shit tusea aarenhncmen !, and he ace partypo
O cursen'forg etreala
 0;ntr's mails! eyo idisover howtrly diffiul i isto dede what t do on thwekns. 2;h pzapary? A sh pat?Gto hemallwitllof yorrnd? 2;av a slepvad calboys on thee?
Inhrt f o aen chked u laina'sit u ontkowwhatou re misin!
I t LOVE ldnat'ssi&# 116;eEsecily he h" secton,where ened tcut e botom off f an od shiroe as ai nhcmn! h,andte "ane par" tos!
Ofcoe,o 9;fogtor 01;ad vlaiator ml!He you wll discovehw tl diffiut it i to ecie a d on the weekes... piza pa? A ash par?t th mall wit all of your fends? aaslepo
 1;rd cl o o he e?
n shot iyu hve'tceckeu vanats 5;ite, yu otkw wht yu're si
Ijut LOVE ditor's ;te! spiall te ash"ecn, wer lerne u the btom ff a ol shi tu as a hair ennemet!O 4; and th"nce paty" pts!
Of ours ot rgt red vlinato's male& #32;you will icoverhtul dificulti i t cideat to do nth ekens. ave pzzparty ash aty Goto the with al of rfrens Havea eovr an allo o h hone
Ihor, yu hven't che ouvldatos ite u don ko h oe missng!
I j OVE adiatrs te Eseciallyte "a"t on re learned tcut te ottoff nodsht t usea a i enhancnt! Oh andh ncepar& #112;hots!
;you d't kwwa ou're msing!
f ce,o't forget teadvlaia& #111;s emails! ere u illsco ho tr ifficuii&# 32;to decide watt do ntwekens&# 46;. hav apizza prt A fahprt?Go o h all th ll oyou fien a aslepvr an cll bs tephone?
n shrt, if yu ven' heck out vldnator'si, 
jst LOE vadito'ssit Especialy theah"sction whee arnedtcu tebotom off f a osr to usesa har enhanement! h n he nce prty"hots!
cos, on't fotoe d vadinator's emais!Hre ouwll discv owtulydiffclt itt deci wt to do tweend.. hve azza py? A fa ay? o t heal wiha yorfiend&# 63; Ha sleepovr nd oys o te pho?
n sot, if yu hve't checked outladitor's sit, you on't know whayoue misng!
I s LOVE vditr'si 16;e! secia he as"setin wre learnedt ct tebtto ooan dshi to ue s a hr enhaneen O,nthe "acpty" pho!
O 4; don't forgeto read vanaor'm& #97; Hee you wil discove hrlyif
 2;cultt i t dcid hatt do o he eeeds..hv a za pary? Afshprt? Go to t mall wih a of u frid Hvea slepverand call bs the pone?
nrt, i you e chd ouvladatrs siteyou dn'kwha 16; y' missg!
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
you can email me at grubin@ccianet.org I don';t post my reg address online (and pray to god i dont get spammed)
You have no idea how bad off you are compared to if there was a functioning market happening there...
Well, there's a great deal of contention regarding the CA electrical utilities, and I don't live there so I haven't followed it closely. But electrical utilities have been regualted for a long time, and several of the very highly regulated ones in CA (e.g. in LA, which is a city-owned utility, IIRC) stayed up perfectly fine.
It was a mishmash of little regulation in some sectors, and excessive regulation in others that seems to be responsible, coupled with a few other factors, like a drought in the northwest, reducing the supply of electricity.
It's possible that deregulating more might have avoided it, and it's certain, given the lack of such failures for the many decades prior, that more regulation would have also avoided it. (similarly, the fairly well-regulated utilities all across the rest of the country, and world also tend to stay up pretty darn well)
As for those who are in favor of decreased regulation, I would like to know why. If you're not going to benefit directly from it (e.g. if you owned or worked for one of those giants) or you don't think that you could become one, what good does it do you?
Roughly I see you preferring the dream of having a big slice of pie, than the modern-day ideal of being able to work with a small slice, and work up. Monopolies do not respond to competition by competiting in turn, but by preventing such competition from ocurring in the first place. They are such a success of capitalism, that their weight prevents it from functioning for the reasons we like it.
ATT was a monopoly (though it had to accept regulation or be broken up long ago, and eventually was anyway) and kept people from developing third party telco hardware, phone book covers, etc. They laughed at the Internet when it was practically handed to them. They never really did anything with regards to cellphones, or faxes, both of which were old hat. (faxes were invented over a hundred years ago, IIRC)
I don't mind not overly regulating certain companies, but in exchange they have to be in a position where they need not be. MS is too powerful to be left alone. Either reduce its power and leave it alone, or let it remain powerful, but harnessed so as to avoid abuses.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I think that Microsoft should be given a slap on the wrist. Not that I am for Microsoft but a seemingly light punishment would give them a huge degree of continuing liability at the hands of their competitors. The money fined, ideally, should go to those who can make cases against Microsoft. A "slap on the wrist" would make it too costly for Microsoft to continue its current plans.
This scenario is still far from perfect but it is preferable from having two monopolies (Office and Windows) in place of one. I think that Caldera is likely to run into continuing revenue problems and I think that part of this is due to the fact that their main revenue source so far has seemed to be their settlement with MSFT... I wonder if they would have had to develop a more profitable business model in the absense of that revenue.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Karma whorin' since 1999
Since any remidy judgement would be on future products and not on existing ones, a delay in a remidy judgement on their XP release means, msft will have codified their future and any remidy judgement will have ZERO EFFECT on them!
XP will be there final operating system release, and all upgrades to allready released products will not be part of the anti-trust remidy judgement. So by beating the clock, msft can circumvent any court ordered remidy!
I also suspect that msft will not share their filesystem information with the corporation that makes partition magic; this will make installing linux on new devices very problematic. Sure you can buy a separate hardrive and linux can peacefully co-exist with XP, but having a dual booting IPAQ will be impossible, as you cannot have two separate bootable storage mediums on them. This will have the effect of forcing most people to choose XP or linux, but not both.
Am I too pestimistic folks?
IAAA ( i aint an american )
justice and law are 2 very seperate things, in the UK ( and from what i remember from law classes - in the USA ) judges are usually there to determine what what was lawful not just .
the law is meant to be determinate , ie you should know what is or is not lawful. Justice is often pretty indeterminate and is based even more on personal prejudice than your US judges normally exhibit when interpreting your laws.
Yes, I am making his point but also point out that judges will never be impartial because they are humans.
There will have their own believes which will influence their rulings and there is nothing you and I can do about it.
This is especially evident in the cases where the law is ambiguous and, in fact, we rely on their personal judgment to make the call..
It's amazing they have any feet left at all
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
"Judges are there to explain and clarify laws.
...
Every decision they make will be influenced consciously or NOT by their personal believes."
Once again the judge is supposed to be impartial. They are supposed to recuse themselves if they feel like they can't be impartial or if there is an appearance of improprietary (when is slashdot going to get a spell checker?).
"As far as SC ruling during last election
They did what they thought was right."
No they did not. The republican members of the court have been the champions of states rights for years. They had also rejected numerous equal protection arguments when it came to other other issues (death penalty for one). If they did what they thought was right they wouldn't have said in effect "don't ever come to us with another equal rights case and expect us to take you seriously we only did it in this one case". I guess equal protection is not important when a nigger is being killed but let a republican loose an election? never!
"Who is to say you are right and I am wrong ?"
Well I guess history will. Maybe some brave journalist will track down some of the favors done by the Bush administration to the members of the judges families and then the rest of the country will too. Of course with the media being so conservative these days I don't expect it anytime soon.
War is necrophilia.
Unfortunately, while these are the same Justices who were there at the end of the Clinton era, only a couple of them were appointed by Clinton. Bear in mind that several of these are the same Justices who decided that their five votes were more important than hundreds or thousands of votes in picking the next President, which is how Bush got into the White House in the first place. These Justices aren't going to be at all predictable when it comes to this case.
You and I are no different in this respect - the machine I got for my wife for $650 would have cost me much more to build - it had quality components, the only thing I had to add was a DVD (it came with a burner) and the Sound Blaster 5.1 Platinum I had got her. The rest of it was all good components, like the Intel Management Pro/100 Adapter (eepro100) and a GeForce 256.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
"Well that just proves my point. If you go and re-read my post you will see that I said the supreme court acted in a irrational and partisan matter. Apparently you agree with me on this one."
guess so, since i originally responded with "YEP, sure have."
"But it's time we woke up to the fact that there is a civil war going on in this country."
NOPE, (that's in the "I Want What You're Smoking" Category) and nothing like it, mass media propaganda..war has big numbers of people shooting at big numbers of other people, lots of blowed up/burnt out buildings, check out coverage of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Beirut, Chechnya, etc
they have wars going on...
what we really have here is; unexcusable poverty in the richest nation in history of mankind, a big-city public school system that would embarass Albania; prisons full of non-violent "criminals" because their mind altering substance is not alcohol or tobacco, a health care system that gives enormous amounts of health care ***FREE*** to the most affluent demographic in America, while ignoring the poorest, the foreign and the most needy AND corporate robber barons who find that if they just give enough money to the Democratic and Republican Parties, both Parties will respond by providing a sideshow that takes everyone's mind off of all the stuff that's REALLY WRONG AND ISN'T ABOUT TO GET FIXED, EVER
we have talking heads on the TV/radio, pontificating morons like Limbaugh, Koppel, Press, Matthews, King, O'Reilly, et al
who crank up the delusional faithful (which would seem to include you) into believing that there really is some kind of political dialogue of some seriousness going on here, when its all just verbal masturbation...
there has been no substantial change in American foreign policy since Eisenhower and no substantial change in American domestic policy since Johnson
nor will their be anytime soon, as it might just get in the way of corporate profits
NARCOLEPSY IS "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE..", Left/Right Wing inspired, media fueled and driven, corporate funded NARCOLEPSY
cheered on and encouraged by the lowest voter participation in a major "democracy" in modern history, bolstered by an even bigger epidemic of NIMBYISM (ala McNealy and Ellison on powerplant construction in Silly Valley) and "only morons do jury duty" middle-class sensibilities (OJ Who?)
if you can't get 'em out to vote, you sure ain't gonna get 'em out for your "Civil War"
well, as Alex "The Frogman" deTocqueville observed, "People get the government they deserve"
and we sure have
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Especially with the imminent block against an XP release is everything. Make the government lose a couple of days, and XP will be out of the door...
The more they tighten their grip, the more users will slip through their fingers.
Is anybody surprised?
Let's look at Bill's receipts after this is all said and done and find out.
Yes, you too can avoid any and all law... simply BUY IT OUT.
What, me worry?
This move makes me happy.
This is as high as they can apeal.
Hopefully, this means the end is in sight.
In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
Fight Spammers!
This decision was upheld unanimously by a very conservative lower court, there is no way the Supreme Court would overturn that. There are no higher judges, but even Supreme Court Justices will respect a lower court's decision if made that emphatically. I expect this to be denied cert, which essentailly means that the Supreme Court has voice their agreement with the lower court's decision without actually hearing the appeal.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
use this.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
If MS is asking that the lower court ruling be completely vacated, does this mean that the SC can re-examine any remedies (ie: breakup)?
Of course I use Microsoft. Setting up a stable unix network is no challenge
Core to MS operating procedure is delay. This is simply yet another delay of the inevitable. But, it will give them time to come up with some other form of hukstery. The sad thing is, FUD works. As is being proven here.
The AP story can be found here.
Too bad Congress borked Bork, they'd have an airtight decision against Microsoft. As it is, MS has got some pretty heavy sway with the pro-capitalism (not necessarily pro-competition) majority of the Supreme Court.
Dancin Santa
Prediction: The court will provide a temporary injunction allowing XP to be put on the market until they make a decision. Then they won't make a decision until Bush is crowned President^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Windows XP is actually released into the wild and the issue becomes moot.
Sometimes politics is so depressing.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
"Microsoft Appeals Anti-Trust to Supreme Court"
They may not have liked it, but the movie never mentioned the company Microsoft. I don't see what the Supreme Court will do for them at this point, I mean, it's already in rental anyway.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
We Need Microsoft to be able to innovate at will. To hell with any laws that get in the way. What is good for Microsoft is good for the world.
As scary the possibility that the verdict could be overturned might be, it is completely outweighed by the fact that if they lose this one, Microsoft has nowhere else to turn. They will have appealed to the highest court in the USA and LOST.
This kind of surprises me since it's been the DoJ's Antitrust Division that has consistently wanted to take this case to the Supreme Court (and bypass the hostile appeals court). This move might backfire for M$ because the Supreme Court's antitrust decisions during the Rhenquist years have not always been favorable to the defendant. In fact, there are actually some prominent pieces of Supreme Court antitrust case law that might play into the hand of the DoJ. Perhaps M$ will shoot themselves in the foot with this move.
God forbid a company try to fight a ruling against them. Hell, why should someone on death row ever appeal anything? Come on people, they have just as much right to appeal these decisions as we do.
I wonder how much ...the Supreme Court costs.
...).
... better ask the treasurer of the Republican Party and the Bush family accountant instead). That is, of course, assuming they'll give you anything approaching an honest answer ... nevermind. Come to think of it, an audit of Microsoft's financials after the trial is probably your best bet after all. Of course, with a government far weeker than the corporation, whose to say you'll ever be able to get an audit?
It probably isn't the easiest thing to figure out (what is the value of an appointment to the
Supreme Court, times seven? What are the value of presidential favors past and present which led up to their short-circuiting of the electorial process? And so on
Probably your best bet it to ask Junior (oh, wait, we promised him there wouldn't be any math on the test
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Translation: Microsoft made another move to buy enough time to release XP. If they can just get that sucker out, they will have leveraged their monopoly into crushing an entire marketplace full of competitors long enough to recover from whatever remedy is applied to them.
Quite the Hail Mary, no?
network and system admins across the world try to deal with the Code Red I and II worms, while MS pushes us forth into .Net land. IIS 6.0 on a .Net server, hey why not? [sarcasm]
What I find so strange is, when someone commits a crime, they are held accountable for it and often spend a long period of time getting out from under the financial burden that it created. When MS stresses the envelope in the OS market, to the point where tax payers' money is used frivilously to prosecute them, it makes them millions on advertising and free PR revenue.
- tre
http://piclabs.com
I wonder if the imminent product launch of XP might bring this entire issue to a head faster than anything? MS probably doesn't want to have any news stories that have the lead: "Microsoft launched XP amidst worries about a strengthened monopoly."
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
An 800 lb. gorilla, to be sure, but the government is a T-Rex.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
An ending to the case! No more appeals, something has to be decided... No matter what the decision, I'm happy.
No sig for you.
No one is suprised that this action is being taken, and the outcome is almost assured, however, it's important to get closure on the issue both for Microsoft and for their opponants/competitors. This way the courts can proceed with establishing a remedy, and Microsoft will not be able to delay further, that stage of the trial. As it stands now, their appeal to the supreme court may delay further action just long enough for them to be able to release Windows XP. Thile this in itself is a bad thing, it does finally exhause Microsoft's options with regard to delaying any remedies that may be established by the courts - which is a critical issue in the technology industry where the battlefields are created and dissapate in months, weels and sometimes days, with their foundations buried in the shifting sands that are the internet. Microsoft has already succeeded in the browser war, and the desktop space licending issue, neither of which are relevent any longer since Web inspired technologies have spawned far more insidious technoques for marketing such as embedding links to adversisers and vendors deep within applications such as was done with the digital camera software that's boundled with Windows, as evidenced by the Kodak case.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Consider the timing and the boldness of this move. Microsoft could have kept this bouncing around in the court system for years, but the problem for them is that the release of XP is coming up in October.
As Win95 was to final victory on the desktop, XP is to MS dominance of the web. They MUST have a clean slate with which to pursue their final victory, otherwise the uncertainty factor of a court decision could delay everyone's surrender to Microsoft and give other vendors a chance to regroup and stymie the XP/.NET freight train. Also, if the judgement against Microsoft goes through without intervention, there will be a validated judgement against MS and the egregious aspects of XP/NET will be lawsuited out of existence.
No, best for Microsoft to end this with one swift stroke. Considering the 5-4 balance of the Supreme Court re: pro-business interests, the odds favor MS.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
The Supreme Court is unlikely to do anything about this. They are unlikely to overturn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made by a federal judge and upheld by a circuit court of appeals. They are unlikely to agree to hear the case. This is more a holding action designed to make the whole process as slow as possible.
It will go to the Federal Circuit Court again, to the Appeals Court, and on back to the Supreme Court at least one more time before things are done. Microsoft needs to give the Supreme Court a reversible error or Constitutional issue before the Supreme Court will agree to hear it.
It is interesting (if you are into legal wrangling), but hardly an important story. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear it, THEN it is news!
...doesn't mean the Court will hear the case. They already refused to hear it ahead of the appellate court, so it is as likely as not that the Supreme Court will allow the penalty phase to be decided before hearing the case.
That's especially true when you figure the the SC probably doesn't want to have to craft a penalty, and would just send the case back down for a penalty phase if it upholds the lower courts' rulings.
The Findings of Fact and of Law are already pretty firmly entrenched in this case. I feel reasonably secure that when and if the case does make it to the Supreme Court that it will stand by the findings made by the lower courts.
Right...
Apparently Microsoft hopes to fix everything in the next release. :-)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
from the CBS Marketwatch article
"Microsoft's request addressed only issues related to judicial conduct. The company said it reserved the right to seek review on other issues at a later date."
/me rolls eyes...
With a reaffirmed, unanimous decision from the appeals court MS stands a snowball's chance in hell of having the Supreme Court. Of course they know it, this is just a delaying tactic so the DOJ can't try to hold up the release of XP. Now that would be COOL!
http://james.nontrivial.org
or what?
Just when they are poised to put a stranglehold on the Internet, e-commerce, network servers, and your mother-in-law's underwear, they are going to try and tell the Supreme Court they are not a monopoly?
has /. not covered the VA Linux class action lawsuits.
We must give up now, any lawsuit by an individual or a small group against a large corporation is clearly a futile endeavor.
- This is going to suck no matter what, so let's just get it over with.
- They were worried that the lower court might issue an injunction against Windows XP, and they're hoping the Supreme Court won't be bold enough to do this, or won't get to it in time.
- An actual desire to expedite the justice process (!?)
- They didn't want another lower court ruling possibly weighing against them.
Any other suggestions?Seen any BadMarketing lately?
On what grounds did M$ ask the return to a lower court be delayed? Why would this make an injunction (against shipping XP) more difficult?
These are the real questions. The rest (the appeal to the Supremes) is/was expected. Appealing to the Supremes does not preclude other actions, so why wouldn't they do this? Due to the findings of the appeals court, the worse that happens in this appeal is that it goes back to district court for a new rememedy.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Do they have lead paint laws where you are?
This would be true if people buying new machines at Best Buy, Dell or Gateway had any options besides which Microsoft OS to buy.
Information wants to be $1.98/lb.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, this is due process. In the end however, I hope whoever makes the final decision on Microsoft factors in their delaying tactic in the sentence. They are so obviously guilty of being an anti-competitive monopoly.
From embrace and extend to
Delay and Defer
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
People need to realize that the Supreme Court isn't going to make a ruling as to the status of Microsoft.
They are appealing it to the Supreme Court. What this means is that Microsoft is asking for the Supreme Court to review the previous courts' rulings and make sure that they are legal and not biased. They can order a new trial, but not hold their own trial. If the Supreme Court rules that something was illegal or was biased, then they will order a new trial, but not decide the fate of Microsoft.
In another development this morning being reported by the AP service, the sun-- which had unexpectedly disappeared the previous night below the horizon, plunging half the earth into near darkness-- suddenly returned, appearing at the opposite point on the horizon and beginning to slowly rise into the sky.
Meanwhile, representatives for the U.S. Coast Guard have reported that the place where the ocean meets dry land is continuing to move back and forth between the High Tide and Low Tide points at the rate of about twice a day. What effect this will have on the stock market is as of yet unclear.
BillG!!!!: HEY TAEK MY CASE KTHANX!!!
Supreme Court: No.
BillG!!!!: ??? IM MICROSOFT;/ I CAN DO ANYNTHING!
Supreme Court: No. And stop that.
BillG!!!!: FINE, BUT IAM GOING TO TEH SUPEREMER COURT/
Supreme Court: Good luck, bye bye.
It probably isn't the easiest thing to figure out (what is the value of an appointment to the Supreme Court, times seven?)
You only need 4. ;-)
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
the point where tax payers' money is used frivilously to prosecute them
OK.. so let's look at some facts here..
MS got tried, and was found guilty.
MS appealed, and the (unanimous) decision, by conservative, republican judges (the people most likely to sympathize with them), was that they are guilty.
So, clearly, MS broke the law.. and it wasn't some stupid littering law.. they are a large threat to every business in the US (probably the world.)
Since when was prosecuting this case "frivolous"?
if it's determined that a LARGE FINE be imposed rather than a breakup, it's likely to be well more that a billion dollars in my humble estimations. Like any other crime, it can't really be undone, and how do you measure the damage done to the industry and more importantly, the consumer?
I think this money should be diverted to open software to prevent any company from being able to monopolize the software industry going forward. Do we get enough cash so all those developers whove contributed to Linux/GNU so far can quit their day jobs and hack the good hack full time? Or do we push open source into schools training teachers and funding an educational system based on freely available source code? (hey work done at unikversities often becomes their sellable property, work from public schools could go back to the public).... What's the remedy, is it tap 10 Billion dollars from MS and if so, what's to be done with that cash?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Well, they risk a lot. What if Supreme Court will think that Judge Jackson had actually pretty good idea and will order to uphold the former decision to break the company? They can still do it, right?
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Unless the Supreme Court rejects the appeal out of hand in the next 2 months and attempted injunctions against releasing Windows XP fail, Microsoft wins, at least in the short term. IANAL, but if I understand legal proceedings correctly, the entire remedy phase is on hold until the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, vacates the ruling out of hand or hears the case. Typically, the Supreme Court takes several months to reach a decision on whether to put a given case on the docket. Microsoft's short-term goal is to extend the case into November, clearing the way for the release of Windows XP. It's a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle, and both sides know this.
Regardless how you feel about Microsoft, though, this isn't good for consumers. The October release date has become much more than an arbitrary deadline, and XP will be released in whatever condition it's in. (I know, the same can be said about their previous versions of Windows, but this time there's a lot more than PR on the line!)
Personally, I don't think the Supreme Court will even hear the case. There doesn't seem to be any legal ambigity or any untested or controversial legal rulings at stake. A conservative, MS-friendly court ruled unanimously against Microsoft on all counts. As big and powerful as Microsoft is, I think the Supreme Court will simply reject the appeal without comment, leaving it to the lower courts. The Supreme Court doesn't like to get involved unless there are constitutional issues at stake, and there aren't any here.
----------
Something cleverAside from the obvious lawbreaking (which does not account for all of its success), Microsoft was more or less playing by the rules of American capitalism... make as much money as possible. The problem is not necessarily Microsoft... it is outdated antitrust law. This case SHOULD get appealed to the Supreme Court, since its outcome will affect the growth of large companies for decades to come.
There are many advantages that a large company has over a smaller one, and simply not enough economic countermeasures to keep things in balance (i.e. "best for the consumer"). For example, if at a given point in time, Company A controls 45% of a market and Company B 55%, B actually has a much higher long-term advantage than the 10% difference would suggest (due to the phenomena of "network effect," "economy of scale," and "barriers to entry") than A. What we need are economic provisions that counteract these excellent long-term advantages in order to:
a) make the playing field more level by drastically reducing the great advantages that a large-marketshared company enjoys
b) lower barriers to entry as much as possible
c) make it difficult to monopolize a business
d) force the players in that business (as a result of more equalized marketshare) to establish mutually-beneficial standards
Determining this legislation would require
1) a quantitative way to measure a company's inherent size advantage over its competitors
2) a way to determine the percentage of "direct competitorship" of one company vs. another (i.e. Coke and Pepsi are 100% direct competitors, but a third non-cola soft drink wouldn't be 100%)
3) the determination of an appropriate financial burden to counteract each unit of the advantage.
This would not be considered a penalty.
Any thoughts?
The Supreme Court hasn't exactly been lying low since the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but they they're not going to touch this one with a ten-foot pole. There's just no need for them to do so.
The Supreme Court's docket is entirely discretionary. They only hear a couple hundred cases every year, out of the thousands that get submitted. It takes years for a case to make its way up to the Supreme Court from the lower courts precisely because the Supreme Court's policy is to let all lower remedies get completely exhausted first and to let all the difficult legal issues receive one or two decisions from below.
They might someday hear a Microsoft antitrust case, but it's not going to be this one right now. Why would they jump into the fray now before the breakup measures are even decided? The case is even dimmer for Microsoft in light of the unanimous circuit court ruling. It's not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overturn a unanimous ruling, but they've almost never gone out on a limb and done so when there were alternatives like waiting for the wheels of justice to turn some more.
Instead of focusing on the Supreme Court, we should be focusing again on the upcoming battles in the district court. While it's decided that Microsoft is guilty of antitrust violations, whether that fact will create any lasting legal or economic ramifications has yet to be seen. It still could go either way: they could be broken up and fined, or they could just get another slap on the wrist with another toothless consent decree.
And with the possibility still open that Microsoft and the DOJ could settle out of court, well, we've got bigger things to worry about.
Todays requisite anti microsoft non news story has been posted and we can all flame away and maintain our anger for another day.
Now wheres that guy who relates everything to a beowulf cluster ?
I never thought i would say it but i think i actually prefer reading trollaxtor posts to these bullshit stories - do most of you think MS even gives a fuck about all the spittle flecked ranting your go on with.
This is not news and its not stuff that matters (but i will give you the nerd part)
I'd rather have a bannana.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't know, I've never found them that appealing...
----------
Something cleverThis is a good thing; we will finally see an end to it if it makes it to the Supreme Court.
Man - that's two whole days' potential delay they passed up on!
The MS legal team must be losing their edge.
-Renard
WinXP ships, and the injunction is imposed against it after it has already started to move copies?
My ideas of the consequences - legal minds feel free to correct me:
1. Walmart, Babbages, Everyone else who sells software is required to 'yank' shelf copies to comply with the injunction. Most stores will be slow to comply, and then claim that they sold out before the injunction hit.
2. We'll have a 'limited edition' of WindowsXP in the wild. Pirate copies will run rampant online and on Ebay because 'the most popular OS' cannot be legally bought in stores, and MS will be in the odd position of having to try enforce their own injunction because they can't be seen as encouraging piracy, can they? The other members of the BSA would scream if they did.
3. After a few months, Microsoft will release something like Windows IR (Injunction Release!) online as an 'update' to existing copies of WinMe and Win2k. It will be an Internet Explorer 4.0 type release -- all the funcitonality of a new OS, all the FUD and anticompetitive bullshit, but Microsoft will give it away as a new product just to spite the Fed and its competitors.
4. ANOTHER LAWSUIT over whether or not MS violated the injuction by releasing WinIR (Say that one out loud!)
5. Microsoft releases much of WinIR under their 'shared source' license, locking hundreds, if not thousands of developers into MS-only development. Hey, if it's free, code for it, right?
6. After months and months and months, a judge finally gets the breakup to stick.
7. Because they won't let him make the rules, Bill takes his toys and goes home. Microsoft 'exits' the home operating system market, and concentrates solely on a 'Software as Service' business market. They sell Win200x releases on a yearly basis to people who want or need server software and are too dim to use a *nix.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I recall the Microsofties gloating when the D.C. Circuit announced its result. The test, at the time, I though, as to for whom the result was better would be whether the government or Microsoft filed a petition for certiorari. It appears that it was, in fact, the government who had the better result.
Hey, this ought to be an interesting case. After all, it's MS Anti-Trust Trial 3.0, and we all know it takes MS 3 versions to get anything right..
Sounds pretty unimportant to me. But if your life revolves around weed... well, each to their own.
I'd rather the Supreme Court review a case against a company who's actions touch upon many major sectors of the economy. Microsoft is so big that they have influence on the news/media. They affect your choice and price on various high-tech products, which in turn affects many people's jobs. They have a very real influence on people's retirement plans.
I for one think if a business is going to become that powerful, they should be under ethical scrutiny once in awhile. Who cares about a goddamn plant.
Your pathetic attempt at a troll has been given an F- by the THC. Please try again.
Hell, I've got karma to burn, so why not?
Something good could come out of that. Considering that the Supreme Court (according to the New York Times) ignored the fact that Bush used different qualifications for determining if a ballot was to be thrown out (the very basis of their "decision" against Gore), maybe this could be another reason to impeach the five members of the Supreme Court Maybe then we could all believe in democracy again.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
After the presidential "election", I don't assume anything anymore with the SC...
By definition, it's the "supreme" court. If they rule against you. You lose. Period. There is no more appeals process. Adn unless I'm mistaken, all the SC judges are the same ones from the Clinton era that oppose the Microsoft monopoly.
The intention is to hold things up while they negotiate. It's not a matter of changing the ultimate "binary" outcome, i.e. whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not. What they are trying to do is create enough delays that the other side will be willing to negotiate the degree of the applicable penalties.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Their delay tactics have already resulted in the demise of the Netscape browser before relief could be granted. They know that if they can roll out XP and .NET before the district court can stop them it will be too late. You can't put the egg back in the shell. The district court will still be able to consider other remedies, but Microsoft will have already been successful in widely deploying new proprietary standards and other agendas such as new activation techniques, killing USB 2.0, strangling MP3, anddiscourage Linux/Windows dual boot systems.
Because these new standards and agendas will have been adopted by other hardware, software and service companies, the district court's ruling will have limited effect on the standards and agendas themselves.
I'm tired of seeing stories like this one from earlier, where Microsoft is throwing their weight around. From a neutral point in this holy war, it is obvious Microsoft has made some great software in their time... and just as often have abused their monopoly to force all sorts of things on people, whether its .doc files that don't have a standard and thus are difficult to convert, or .NET, or a hundred thousand hacked IIS servers with open cmd.exes available.
.NET, and such is a whole new round of attempts to lock people into computing hell if they aren't totally dependant on Microsoft from cradle to grave for anything touching a computer.
Their renewed attack with dynamic web-rewriting,
Oops. I don't know what the SC court is. The Sun Corporation court? I only wish...
They'll never dare to rule against Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the article:
"On that basis, Microsoft argues that the district judge should have been disqualified from any further role in the case as of the time the earliest violation occurred," Microsoft told the court. The appeals court strongly condemned Jackson's actions, but said that nevertheless Microsoft still acted as an illegal monopoly."
"The Supreme Court's review of the disqualification issue is important to restoring public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system," Microsoft argues.
Here's my question: How much does M$'s spin staff get paid? I mean, really, they seem to be fairly on the ball with their jobs, 24/7...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
This this is the most naive, ridiculous diatribe I've read here in a while?
So now Microsoft wants to take the case to the Supreme Court. And there are some really REALLY smart people at Microsoft (they have been able to get away with all this stuff, haven't they??). They (Microsoft) knows something - whether they can have it overturned or simply as an elaborate delay tactic. Who knows.
Needless to say, I hope it backfires for them.
Ha ha.
The pendulum swings our way now. And when Bush makes the next 2-3 Supreme court nominations (to fill expected coming vacancies), The Right will rule your ass for the next 3-4 decades. Suck that BJB.
umm yeah
i thought the US was a capatalist country with a free market economoy ?
then why are you proposing government controls on business ? the fact is MS have a monopoly because they were smart/cunning etc enough to develop a product and push it at the right time and place, yes they are agressive and yes they probably stifle competition - SO what thats capitalism
You want to see REAL power - i have worked in both Tobbacco and Soft Drinks for major players in the market - these guys make MS look like cute fluffy bunny rabbits - you know why coke and pepsi dominate the market ? - beacuse they will go to any length to crush and keep out competitiors - in some case questionable legal practices are the norm, they will sue you if your advertising looks anything like theirs, the color of your cans is smiliar or any one of a million reasons (oh and there are a few smaller players in this market with maybe 2-5% market share but they are not much in cokes opinion and anyway they generally have an equity holding in the companies)
Tobbacco is worse - its a closed shop. BAT who i worked for are (i think this is current - may not be) 5th largest company in the world - they dominate worlwide tobacco like you would not believe and also own Zurich insurance, Farmers and Allied life and a heap of others not to mention diversified operations around the world. Ever wonder why you dont see new cigarrette companies - the reason is they wont survive a year - the big companie would (and do - i have seen it) crush them.
Whats the most valuable brand on the planet ?
Give up - its marlborr cigs - estimated worldwide trademark value of $300US Billion.
Bet non of you would picket against coke and marlboro though.
Now please note IM NOT TROLLING and im not an MS advocate - what i am saying is that your country like mine prides itself on having a judicial system that it claims works, so MS have the right - like you or anoyone else, to exploit this system to the fullest, and if the courts cant prove their case MS win - just like anyone.
And when you point to one company as being the satn - there are many others who deserve the title more - maybe everyone should have a look around and open your eyes
Here are some companies with a history of 'interesting ' business practices for you
Monsanto - Agent orange anyone
Union Carbide - Substandard pay and safety coniditions in worldwide plants - check out bapual in india
Coke - you would not believe what these guys will do to sell a fizzy drink
McDonalds - Consumer fraud, staff mistreatment etc
Wyerth, Pfizer and other drug companies - atrificially inflate the price of drugs and thus restict their usage to those who can pay, refuse cheap drugs for the third world, etc
Ford - Firestone tyres anyone ?
British American Tobbaco - 400 pound gorilla of worldwide tobbacco - Brown and Wiliamson, Wills, Gallaghers, Zurich insure, etc etc - spends 500million a year on F1 racing and this is a drop in the bucket - cash reserves of some us$20 Billion
Now i wold argue coke are a monopoly , and the drug companies and tobacco companies operate as cartels so you might not consider this point important HOWEVER...
Has anyone ever been killed by a copy of windows ?
After all this is not (unless i missed something) a religious crusade ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For a limited time only you can get a collectable sodomy action figure with every purchase! Joe sixpack, blind justice lady, dead old guys. Get the whole set! Offer valid while supplies last.
This condenses a couple of earlier posts I made and just wasn't satisfied with and adds some more.
.NET are essential services and expropriate[?] them and allow them to be freely used as web standards. Or if they weren't willing to go that far they could require full disclosure of the API's and force royalty-free licenses of all required patents to allow the interoperability of technologies. There is much leeway in the future, including future lawsuits to address future monopoly concerns. Remember, Microsoft is convicted of being a monopoly - this will not change. With this established, future litigation will already have the big hurdle out of the way.
Like it or not Microsoft deserves their day in court. If it was you - for whatever offense - you would want yours too. This doesn't mean that Microsoft is going to get off scot-free, there's still the penalty phase. The government could decide that technologies such as
It will be used to subsidize the cost of the M$ OS on the Dell Laptop my friend got from his (State) College. The Gubment isn't going to give any money to Open Source, t'would be nice though.
/rant
/rant
What? Do you people really think that anything other than (insert favorite means of destruction) is going to stop these guys? 2 companies? 3 companies? How about: M$ Hardware, M$ ServerOS, M$ DesktopOS, M$ HandheldOS, M$ IE, M$ Dev, M$ Marketing & Legal, & M$ IP. And oh yeah, they CAN'T share code unless they open source it to do so. And if they have to license tech from each other in the next 5 - 10 years a 3rd party will mediate the price for them. Yeah....
Call me when that happens..
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I think that, rather than breaking up the company (which really may not have a real impact on the way they do business, anyway) is to require the release of the format codes for Office.
One of the big reasons that businesses use Microsoft is because it emerged as a "standard" for business communication. Products like WordPerfect, StarOffice, KOffice, Gobe Productive, etc. etc. all have had to implement some sort of filter to display Office documents - usually with less-than-adequate results. The end result is that information that belongs to US is being held hostage by Microsoft - if you want to communicate with others, you have to use MS Office. (Why do you think there is a version of Office for the Mac? Certainly not because there was no quality office suite available.)
Releasing those codes would go a long way towards truly leveling the playing field for other office software makers, and would in turn give people the choice to use any office software (and hence any operating system) they please.
And lets face the fact: If one of them DOES keel over, or retire (as Sandra Day O'Connor reportedly says she wants to) they are likely to be replaced by someone FAR FAR more scary. Think about this: Bush is like Rush Limbaugh - only FAR more stupid. Who do you think he's going to try and appoint to the court???
By the way - is anyone else seeing "Invalid form key GvORsfGrvV !" every damn time they try to submit something? Hey Rob! Fix the damn site please!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
The real question is:
Does Bill Gates own any oil companies? If so, He's got all the buddies in Washington DC he'll ever need.
Don't write in this space.
OK
They know that if they can roll out XP and .NET before the district court can stop them it will be too late.
... [and] would allow PC makers to sell systems with Windows XP installed in September."
So it's completely predictable that they would have taken this step (and others) to try to delay the courts.
What I hadn't heard predicted, though, is that they also may ship XP next month! "Microsoft could send PC makers the final--or gold--code for Windows XP as early as Aug. 15
Anything to beat the clock and dodge the bullet.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
No, we're mostly capitalists, we mostly have a free market, but the goals of a decent society may not match 100% with the end result of a whole hog capitalist free market.
So finding the former better than the latter, we mold capitalism into something slightly different that gives us what we do in fact want.
MS broke the law, and they're good laws that have kept the country running for over a century. Late 19th century abuses of corporate power were really something, and I don't think that anyone wants to go down that road again. (save the very very few that would directly benefit from it, and those who fantasize about being in that elite)
Basically, we want all of the good, and none of the bad, and since the system isn't carved into stone, it's possible, though it requires a lot of manual fine tuning.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That's why they are appointer to LIFE terms. So they cannot be swayed by $$campaign money$$, bad publicity, or special intrests.
Funny, the last time I looked, they don't advertise raw machines anymore. In fact, that is what I went there looking for not 3 months ago, and was presented with two choices: Win and Mac. I couldn't even find LINUX machines on their site anylonger. I suppose it's possible that I simply had an aneurysm and wasn't reading what I was looking at correctly, but it sure seemed that OS-less machines were not listed anylonger.
<Vlad goes and looks>
Yep! Here's what currently listed on the page for choices:
Systems
PC - Windows
PC - Apple
PC - Kits
Notebooks
Hand Held
Hand Held Accessories
Servers
Server Accessories
NOTE: You can get a Windows Machine, an Apple, or an unassembled incomplete kit. OS-less machines no longer an option.
Gee, I wonder if this had anything to do with the recient rash of MS threatening people who sell PC's without operating systems?
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
They Circuit Court didn't rule a breakup unjustifiable. It ruled that Jackson exhibited poor faith in how he went about choosing it as a remedy -- that he showed bias in the various Microsoft motions he denied and the inappropriate extralegal comments he made.
When the case goes back to the district court level, the new judge can choose a breakup remedy anew.
What a bold claim! So, just like that, the drug lords would be able to overtake the Colobian gov't, simply because of a "tacit bow." Care to back this up?
The reason the USA is in Colombia fighting the narco-guerillas is to prop up a shitty but more-US-friendly government. The bullshit war on drugs is an excuse for the trampling of all sorts of civil liberties, both here and abroad.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
They will shift to a fraction of a penny from a trillion transactions a year and leave the utility OS market to the lower cost competition.
.NET really needs 64-bits and I don't see them competing against Linux when its already on those platforms, free and easier to administer.
Besides
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
As stated ad infinitum above, this is a pure stalling tactic.
...for starters.
Which leads me to guess that they thought there was a good chance of an XP injunction being issued. Why else take the chance of having the ruling upheld by the Supreme Court?
My guess is the MS is betting that no judge would have the balls to slap an injuction on XP while we're waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case. Then they're betting that the S.C. won't weigh in until after XP goes into production, and that no judge would slap an injuction on XP once all those bucks start getting spent (burning CD's, OEM's getting ready to release, etc.).
Well SOMEBODY out there had better get some balls... FAST. I say, no XP until I can get a service pack on Win95/98 to remove all that IE stuff from memory.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Remember, this is the same supreme court that angered 49% of the entire country without seeming to care at all.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
This appeal is on one issue - Judge Jackson. The Appeals Court threw out Jackson's remedy (the breakup) to be reconsidered by a new judge. Microsoft is trying to get the Supremes to throw out the rest of Jacson's rulings, and get them reconsidered by a new judge as well.
The Appeals Court didn't buy this strategy. They said they reviewed the record, and that there was no 'actual bias' prior to the remedy. Microsoft disagrees, and says that they don't have to show 'actual bias', just the perception of it. In this petition, MS relies heavily on two precedents, the biggest being some other case where the Supreme Court said there didn't have to be 'actual bias' to throw out a lower court ruling.
This petition sounds valid on the face of it. (I don't get why the appeals court didn't throw out Jackson's findings, personally. IANAL, thank god) But MS is probably stretching the precedent they clearly want to apply.
----
Hasn't been a seven-member court for ages. You need five to get a majority - there are nine justices.
... five should be as well, as long as they are in good health, lead relatively safe lives (e.g. no high-risk hobbies), are thoroughly bought and paid for, and can then be retained (via additional bribes, extortion, blackmail, party or filial loyalty, or what have you).
:-)
All that aside, seven supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans. Whatever political favors were owed were paid back in full last December, notwithstanding another poster's pathetically niave notion that merely because they were appointed by Junior's predicessors (including his own father, Bush Sr.) the result is somehow unrelated. History would appear to indicate otherwise, although calculating a monetary value for services rendered (and the cost of obtaining said services) will probably be a subject of scholarly debate among historians a couple of generations from now.
In any event, thence came my initial 7 x [value of an appointment] = what it cost Junior (or, more accurately, his party) to get the supreme court in their pocket. As to whether one could get it cheaper (e.g 5 x [value of an appointment]), the question then becomes how reliable a 5 member majority is vs. a seven member majority and what exactly does it mean, and does it take, to truly have the court in one's pocket? Seven justices clearly were quite adequate
It is really quite moot anyway , as Microsoft has more than enough capital to buy all nine justices regardless of price.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
When did Bill Gates lie? I understand that you all blindly hate the man with a passion, but when did you ever see him lie?
Well, if this Code Red worm starts to affect internet bandwidth, then I know of one Supreme Court Justice that going to pissed about his slow downloads from pr0n sites.
Hey, who put the pubic hair on my coke can?!
Don't you see what your supposed "good laws" are getting us? The California power failures for one. Though not specifically an anti-trust case, the government is regulating them to death!! And speak for yourself in regards to the state of things in the late 19th century. Myself, and many other think that was much closer to the way things should be. I grant that this isn't the majority opinion, but there are others in favor of it than just the corporate giants.
Make that "any lawsuit by an individual, small group, or department of justice against a large corporation is clearly a futilie endeavor" and we have a more relevant statement... wouldn't you agree? ;)
"This decision was upheld unanimously by a very conservative lower court, there is no way the Supreme Court would overturn that. There are no higher judges, but even Supreme Court Justices will respect a lower court's decision if made that emphatically."
The decision of the Court of Appeals may have substatial predictive value for how the SCOTUS will decide to grant certiorari or decide a case. But it is in no way determinative. This court has emphatically indicated that it may grant certiorari when all observers expected that it would not. This court has decided cases in ways that are not obvious to even experienced SCOTUS observers. Personally, I don't think they will grant cert either but I don't kid myself about it.
"I expect this to be denied cert, which essentailly means that the Supreme Court has voice their agreement with the lower court's decision without actually hearing the appeal."
Denial of a grant of certiorari in not a mechanism of voicing agreement without hearing the appeal. All that denying cert does is end the appeal proceess for whatever issues are on appeal. The court may or may not agree with the appeals court. It is possible that they disagree with the appeals court on the technical issue but agree with the outcome. They may be waiting for a better set of facts. They may think the issue is insufficiently important. There is no way to tell because the court doesn't say anything when it denies cert.
It is important to remember the effect of granting or denying certiorari. If the court grants cert than the decision it reaches becomes binding precedent on the entire country. If the court does not grant cert, then the court of appeals decision is binding precedent only on those jurisdictions that lie within its circuit. The decision may well influence decisions in other circuits but they are not bound. When there is a disagreement on a point of law between the circuits, the SCOTUS will often settle the matter when a case with the appropriate facts and posture petitions for certiorari.
Finally, I don't see why you think this is a bad move. Does Microsoft have something to lose by exercising their right to appeal? And if they do, is it offset by whatever they gain from the appeal? Just because an appeal doesn't produce the ultimate result of reversal doesn't mean it doesn't produce other, lesser benefits.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
This is the END.....
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
1.) Whether the ruling is upheld, overturned, or not even heard by the court. (OK, so this one is probably a gimme)
2.) If it's heard, who comments on the decision, and do they support or dissent?
3.) If it's not heard, will there be any comments, and what might they say? Will the justices kick it back down with a chuckle, or will they too say something about (for example) Microsoft's disrespect of the legal system?
Microsoft is focused on getting XP out in October, and they are rationally playing for as much time as they can. To me, that looks completely Machiavellian, uninterested in justice, and devoid of conscience, just like you would expect a profit-maximizing non-human entity to behave. Keep this in mind when you give that entity your credit card number or entrust it with personal information. Scary.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh yeah, it's useless. Let's just lie down and let old Bill continue to be one of the richest people on the planet. What are you stupid? Or are you just one of the countless Microsoft cows who drink the Cool aid and give up? Guess what genius? The Open Source Movement has done a little more than "posturing". They've given MS some pause for thought (Halloween Documents) and have convinced some major players (Apple and IBM) to see their side of the story. I'm really hurt that you don't care about my struggle. Just sit back and watch your Zena on TV while my friends and me put Bill out of business.
And in other news Microsoft is giving a $7.2 million donation to the University of Washington. The money will be used for a new computer science building. How ironic the timing of this, ahem, announcement.
My name is Carlos Montoya. You share files of my music. Prepare to die.
Most stores will realize that flipping the bird to a federal judge is not a sound business strategy. If any injunction requires in store copies to be pulled they will disappear within 48 hours.
You think any given Walmart manager will think twice about selling anything they have in stock? This is the same company that has repeatedly been cited for 'early releases' of console games, books, and CDs. Remember when the Nintendo 64 came out? NintendoCo 'punished' Wallyworld for releasing them early by not filling any of their orders till after Christmas. They also got in trouble with Scholastic when some stores released early copies of the fourth Harry Potter book.
ebay wont allow the sales to take place either. They'll either prevent them of their own accord or MS will through ebay's rights holder program.
Yeah, just like they've stopped the sale of any other Microsoft Product. You're frebasing right now, aren't you? That would explain why a Ebay search for MS Office brings up 11 pages of used and pirate copies. Don't take my word for it, try it
yourself.
You are sadly mistaken, pal, if you think that stores will do anything to comply with a federal injunction if ATF agents aren't there forcing the sales drones to take them of the shelves.
Two things could happen: 1. The supreme court won't hear the case based on the fact that it was a unnanimous decision. 2. The supreme court WILL hear the case and it will be quickly overturned. I think MS will do some bargining and appeal to the political powers that be with ideas that releasing XP will kick-start the staggering economy by encouraging people to upgrade their PCs for the new OS. As we've seen the requirements are very stiff.
WURD!!
Wow, that strategy of attacking Judge Jackson for running his mouth sure worked out well. It bought them just enough time to realize how stupid it was to not challenge the entire judgement, so now they get to go to a Supreme Court that doesn't tend to be very friendly to big corporations. I guess they are hoping that a few of the older justices croak and get replaced by some of Dubya's corporate cronies in time to save their butts.
Of course, at this point MS is just fighting for time. Netscape has slowly managed to die off, despite Microsoft's arguments that AOL paying too much for Netscape in the DotCom days showed that Netscape was doing fine, and AOL is continuing to hold off switching from IE to Komodo, which doesn't make MS look good. Linux companies are dropping left and right, and game companies that were once very happy to push for Linux are coming out with the fact that Linux games don't sell, pointing out that Linux isn't really a desktop competitor. On top of that, MS is starting to gain server market share once held by Sun.
So I guess Microsoft is making a last ditch effort now, trying to pull a hail Mary victory with the Supreme Court. This should be interesting.
"Late 19th century abuses of corporate power were really something, and I don't think that anyone wants to go down that road again. "
They were nothing compared to current abuse by feds.
There has got to be a way around the calender chicken that is being played out here.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hummm, what would be fair? Considering all of the companies that MS either bought, forced out or just killed via idea theft(tm) I'd say we should just line up the principle leaders of MS and have a good ole' stoning. Sell the tickets for $1k a toss, and donate it all to you're favorite distrubution of Linux or BSD. Although we'd have to sell "small" rocks, to make things last for awhile. OR, MS could pay for each security flaw. (that would pay better!)
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
J.Lo keeps it real
In a recent interview with the U.K. version of Glamour magazine, Jennifer Lopez confesses that she has a weird habit -- she forgets to put clothes on sometimes. "The weirdest thing about me is that I like to walk around naked," confesses J.Lo. "I grew up walking round naked in my house." Say what? She claims the nudity was a Lopez family trait: "My mom was like that, and my sisters." Okay... but wouldn't she grow out of it? "Even today," she says, "I'll be sitting at the breakfast table and everyone's dressed except me." Yikes.
Thanks for the link man.