Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Argues in Favor of MS Settlement
hpa writes: "It is described in this article on CNET the Department of Justice is arguing in favour of the proposed settlement, because the government's case was too weak to impose additional penalties on Microsoft. Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..." There's also an AP story.
Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant
It's amazing what a few million dollars under the table can do...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
The article states the the DOJ was explaining why they settled, not defending MSFT.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Just because the DOJ are wusses doesn't mean that MS is totally in the clear.
Defense: Your honor, our client committed no crime.
DOJ: Yes, he did. He committed lots. Look, we have evidence.
Defense: Your honor, our client has committed crimes and is sorry.
Judge: Oh, well, in that case.
DOJ: Your honor! We demand a punishment!
Defense: A punishment? Are you some sort of barbarian, with your "punishing"?
DOJ: Your client will be punished!
Defense: Will not!
DOJ: Will too!
Defense: Will not!
[...3 hours later]
DOJ: Will not! I mean! Wait, that was no fair I...
Defense: Ha! Sucka!
Judge: Case dismissed!
-l
they're whores.
have you seen the amount of contributions given to Ashcroft in the Missouri Senate race by MS? 2nd biggest, right after enron.
... hi bingo
It's pathetic when the U.S. Government can take a hard line on terrorism in traditional forms, but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism. The DOJ is basically giving up because they're tired of trying to fight Microsoft. What sort of precedent does this set for the Standard Oils of the new millenium?
This government has bowed to corporate interests at every turn. I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests. This is yet another side effect of the US's desire to remain an economic superpower. It has changed from a Representative Democracy to a colossal beauracratic corporation. Perhaps we should call it The United States of America Inc.?
Remember folks, a government that tramples the rights of the citizen is a tyrannical government. There is no leeway for arguement in that.
Of course political contributions could be the reason that the DOJ refuses to enforce the antitrust laws even after winning the case. But, it may just be an ideological bent.
The Cato Institute does not really support Microsoft in its defense. It just believes the government should not have antitrust laws nor enforce the ones they have.
To be honest, it is most likely not the money at all.
Of course, telling the judge that the DOJ did not try because she would not order a more appropriate remedy is a waste of breath. One of the reports suggested that the judge was asking if the DOJ position is not at odds with the appellate decision. It clearly is. And, she knows it. She went on to ask "why?".
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
...another /.er's comment i once read:
The DOJ was supposed to come down on Microsoft, but they went down on them instead.
;o
Seriously, this does not suprise me at all, given the priorities of the current administration.
Face it, Microsoft is a major corporation and, yes, a considerable influence on our economy. No administration (that can actually get elected) is going to gleefully attack them, because they fear the economic effects (yes, I realize that any negative effect would likely be short-lived, and would be more than made up for by the subsequent explosion of new entrepreneurship, but many people don't see things this way).
This is a point I've always been a bit upset by in this whole saga. I feel it is wrong to say Microsoft has a monopoly. Clearly, there are/have been plenty of options - Linux, Apple, Be, *BSD, etc. However, Microsoft has enjoyed and abused monopolistic powers. That is, MS have a sufficiently large market share such that abuse in a monopolistic manner can occur. Much like Standard Oil wasn't strictly a monopoly, MS is not a monopoly. However, when one company becomes a large enough part of a large market, that company can hold (and usually will abuse) monopolistic powers. I've always worried about MS getting out untouched because of the semantic error of labelling the company a monopoly.
RagManX
GWB, "I prefer inovation over legislation."
It was all down hill after GW Bush started to use the term "inovation" when referring to Microsoft. The conspiracy theorist in me says that he was bought out. Maybe he slipped when he said it?
Personally, I think that is great for you. And I try to do the same.
But I can't read most of what is emailed to me from a business perspective without MSFT. Heck! I couldn't even submit a resume for a job working on Unix without the document being in WORD. That's whacked.
To take it further -- I can't read Word from Linux unless someone has managed to hack out the latest variation of the DOC format.
Netscape has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Wordperfect has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Lotus is mostly dead as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
And now through SSSCA, all GPL software stands a chance of dying too. Then you will only have Microsoft to work with and you will be labelled an enemy of the state, part of the Axis of Evil
it won!
How we know is more important than what we know.
The DOJ, with every detail of the trial available to them, decided that further litigation would not be of further use to anybody. A large number of people with very limited access to the details (but with heavy anti-Microsoft biases) conclude that the DOJ is wrong. Who's right? I know who I'd put my money on. Do you believe that the righteous always win in the courthouses of the United States? Or that the lawbreakers never escape conviction or punishment? Whether or not the settlement agreement is fair is beside the point. The decision to end the trial makes sense. Within the framework that is the justice system of the U.S., it appears the DOJ has gone as far as they can.
Do you expect it to be any different? The USA isn't interested in a free market, so why would they punish Microsoft? Yesterday, the USA announced 30% tariffs on imported steel in order to protect their own steel workers. If they don't care about the free market between countries, why would they care about the free market inside their own?
I don't think that there is a good solution to this problem, because for the most part, they seem to be attacking the wrong problem. For most of the trial it seemed that the DOJ and company were attacking the software end of MS, meaning the IE browser, the integrated-ness of the OS and such.
When they should have ignored that completly. They should have attacked their business policys because that's what the problem really is. The problem with MS is that they used their position to destroy all other oses. DR-DOS, IBM-DOS, OS/2, etc. all dissapeared because MS played dirty pool and wouldn't let computer manufactures sell PCs with those OSes without penalizing them for doing so.
It doesn't matter if IE can be removed or not, if MS wants to make it part of their product then so be it. If they want to integrate Office with their os then so be it. It's their product, if you don't like it, complain to MS or don't buy it.
I feel that linux is now a real alternative to windows on the x86 platform. And if you really don't think so, then go buy a Mac. They are also good machines.
I don't know how they can pay for the deaths of the other software they killed by being a monopoly. I don't think that this settlement is enough punishment, but that's a biased opinion.
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
This is a common misconception of anti-trust law (IANAL). Unlike what we were taught by Parker Brothers, a monopoly isn't defined as a 100% market-share. According to the way anti-trust law is applied, a monopoly exists when the average consumer believes there are no viable alternatives. In this particular case, MS has an OS monopoly because the cost of switching is prohibitively high for most end-users. Saying that you can give up most of your existing apps to switch to Linux, or ditch your hardware to switch to Apple is no answer for users.
Charles James, the head of DOJ's antitrust division, was a played a significant role in the formulation and enforcement of the DOJ's antitrust policy under Reagan. It was Reagan's DOJ that walked away from the IBM antitrust case. It's no surprise Charles James is using his prosecutorial discretion to avoid putting the screws to MSFT.
The day Bush won, US v. MSFT was essentially over.
When AT&T had a telephone monopoly, people still had the options of...
1) Moving to another country where AT&T wasn't a monopoly.
2) Buying all the land in between their own, and those people they wanted to call, for the purpose of building their own comm system.
3) Writing letters.
4) Doing without. It's not like telephones are a necessity.
So, I guess the courts were wrong back then, they obviously weren't a monopoly after all.
Besides, Linux wasn't an option when Microsoft committed their crimes. Microsoft had, and still continues to have, better than 85% of the marketshare, and is guilty of using it to try to kill both Apple and Linux, and for that matter, everything else which is even remotely a substitute. They're guilty of attempting to turn the internet into a big, sad AOL clone (.NET, IIS extensions that are incompatible with competing products, abuse of html standards) and for no other reason than this would give them more of an iron grip over how you use the net and your computer.
They are guilty, even legally guilty. They are a monopoly not only in the practical sense, but also as defined by law. The executives at M$ don't play fair, and worse, when they force their products onto everyone, those products aren't even half as good as the now dead competitor. So you tell me, how could you ever possibly defend them?
You are aware that "honest lawyer" is an oxymoron, aren't you?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
DOJ Lawyer, TK429 : Hey, you Microsoft, Let me take a look at your software!
Bill Glates : This is not the software you're looking for.
TK429 : Ok, this isn't the software we're looking for.
Gates (waving his hand) : We may procede.
TK429 : Ok, these guys look clean, move along.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
You do know that there are plea bargains in criminal trials, as well, right? And it's not proposed by the judge, but as a deal between plaintiff and defendant, and approved (or rejected) by the judge.
They're probably looking for a settlement because, with the record in the Court of Appeals being what it is *and* the previous judge being a publicity-loving jackass who got himself tossed out of the case after giving the appearance of partiality (no evidence required -- merely an appearance of such taints the whole shebang), they DON'T want to basically have to spend another decade wrangling over the proposed remedies.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Sure they were. Clinton and his party took money from everybody, not just American citizens. Now that's open-minded.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Just a question.
:) ) The question i am asking is, technically, legally, is this a thing which is an *option*; asking "is there a law by which Sun or whoever can sue to have Bush appointees taken away from this case", not "if Sun sued under such a law, would they succeed". Is it possible under the laws of the U.S.. But respond how you will. Thanks..
It is my belief, and i know the belief of most of the people on slashdot, that the DOJ is currently neither acting in the best interests of the american people or acting to see the law of the united states of america upheld.
Whether from "contributions" or bribes, or from the simple republican belief that laws should keep quiet and go play alone in their room and leave the nice Important People alone when they're trying to make money (now run along now. shoo), the DOJ seems pretty clearly to me to be currently of the belief that microsoft is doing a good job and should be let loose from the responsibilities of the good of the american people or either the letter or intent of the antitrust laws. Put plainly, the executive branch is currently against the idea of antitrust regulation.
However, it is not the executive branches job to make the law. That is the job of the legislative branch. And the legislative branch has declared anticompetitive behavior to gain monopolistic control over a market harmful and illegal. And it is not the executive branches job to decide whether extant law is valid and worthy to be carried out. That is the job of the judicial branch. And the judicial branch seems in this case to want the law to be carried out.
But it is the executive branch that is currently trying to end this. So i ask: can they be removed from this? In any way? I know nothing of law-- this is why i am asking. Can citizen groups sue to state that the prosecution of this case should be taken out of the hands of the DOJ and into the hands of the EFF or some specially-appointed board? Can the judge appoint some kind of Special Master or Special Prosecutor or someone who will be picked to actually attempt to push for the most stringent judgement possible for microsoft? (REMEMBER, it is NOT the job of the prosecutor to decide what is just. It is the job of the prosecutor to argue for the strongest judgement possible, the job of the defendant to argue for the weakest judgement possible, and the JUDGE to ensure all arguments are reasonable and find the most just and legal balance behind all. The judge should be unbiased. The prosecution is not really intended to be someone unbiased against the defendant, so it doesn't matter if the prosecutor is someone picked by Sun or Oracle or whoever; whether biased or no, the prosecutor should *act* biased against the defendant, because that is their *job*.) Can we declare John Ashcroft tainted because he recieved campaign contributions from microsoft, and have him chineese-walled away from the case?
Don't police officers and judges and FBI agents and Attourneys General of the United States of America have to swear to protect the american people and uphold the law? If the people currently trying to short-circuit the case against microsoft make it clear they are against in this case the upholding of the law, are they violating those oaths? Can there be legal repercussions for them in doing that?
A quick note to those responding: I am not *particularly* trying to start a flamewar (flamewar bad. informative comments good. HULK SMASH) on whether the doj SHOULD be blocked out of the microsoft antitrust case. I am not 100% convinced it is the best thing (just mostly
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One thing I don't understand. If a company does something illegal, all it gets is a fine. The company can still exist and still profit from their illegal activities. But if an individual does something illegal, he's sent out to prison, and if he does something really bad, they can give the death sentence. Why is there not a death sentence for companies? In other words, if the company is found guilty of a crime the company ceases to exist. The company is then handed over the government. The government finds a way of splitting the assets between the competitors. More that I think of it, that could cause a whole new set of problems...
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
Instead of the traditional Windoze or Office artwork/logo, they would have to show a large, full-color picture of OJ Simpson on every product package. Think of it -- OJ could use the royalties to pay the civil judgment against him, and M$ would have a celebrity endorsement.
First, yesterday's news that the Vatican Endorses .NET Messenger Service, and now this!
When faced with a problem, many web developers say "I know, I'll use JavaScript!".
Now they have two problems.
No, it's more like "We find the defendant guilty. Now for the sentence...
Prosecution: "Hmmm, I just don't think we have a strong enough case."
Someone sane: "But you won!"
Prosecution: "Well, we're willing to settle because we don't really have a good case."
Someone sane: "But you... what?"
No, they are proven guilty already, that's the crazy thing. We're just supposed to be deciding the punishment.
I've been banging my head against the wall about this for so long, it's getting misshapen.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
For some reason people tend to ignore that the DOJ went to court with the wrong case. They became enamoured with the Netscape case and left out much better arguments for a monopoly case.
I really don't think MS was inherently wrong by tying the browser to the OS. Maybe it was bad engineering (crippling the OS on purpose), but having an integrated browser did benefit me as a consumer.
Konqueror, for example, benefited me more as a Linux user, because it is a better integrated browser. I would also prefer a lightweight, less-buggy, integrated browser in Windows, but I don't see releasing a crappy product as an anti-competitive maneuver.
Forcing the market to accept a crappy product AND REJECT competition is an obvious anti-competitive maneuver. There is no way MS could give that the "benefits the consumer" spin. The BeOS case was a much more obvious evidence of monopoly abuse than anything Netscape-related.
It's not clear it's monopoly abuse to alter your product to compete with other companies. It is monopoly power to force legislation (OEM contracts) and/or artificial technical constraints (false incompatibility error messages with other OSes) upon the market.
Declaring MS a monopoly for the wrong reasons just makes it less likely for it to ever receive the punishment appropiate for the "right reasons".
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
As far as I know, the New Zealand steel industry is not heavily subsidised by our government. Why should our steel industry be punished because the Americans are so inefficient?
There's an interesting political subtext here.
The DOJ of a Republican administration is implying they'd like to impose stiffer penalties (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) if only the DOJ of a previous Democratic administration had done a better job arguing their case in earlier phases of the trial.
That's some fancy political jujitsu.
The settlement can not have as its purpose "punishment" of Microsoft. The court documents are littered with precedents that companies found to have violated the relevant statutes (Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, Clayton Act) cannot be per se punished for the violation. They can be required to "disgorge" (such an interesting word) the fruits of their acts, but the finding cannot be punitive. Even this doesn't really apply to Microsoft, because they were found to have gained their Windows monopoly legally (it's legal to have a monopoly, believe it or not) buy to have used illegal means to maintain that (desktop OS) monopoly. Unfortunately the argument about illegally tying IE was overturned by the Appeals Court.
Any future settlement of this case must focus, as a matter of law, on preventing Microsoft from continuing its illegal acts. This is why 99% of the Tunney act responses were more or less thrown out.
I have tried in vain to pimp Linux to everyone I know but the answer is still the same. Either "There is no software for it" or "it's too hard". I mention this here as I am trying to understand why people keep chosing MS over linux (I am aware that about 80% of Windows users have never even heard of Linux which is an issue in itself). Anyhow, both of which couldn't be further from the truth. Linux is very different but its advantages are clear (Not crashing all the dam time for a start) KDE and Gnome make everything nice 'n easy for the newbies and there is no end of free software on the net. After thinking about this for a while I realized that it all came down to conformity. The "everyone else has it so I have to attitude" and I realized that the neumerous arguments I've had in real life with my many student peers over this issue were all in vain as the above mentality is as irrational as it comes and as Ingersoll said "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead". So let's just sit back take the time to congratulate ourselvs for using an OS that we couldn't expect any more from, laugh at the ignorant Windows weenies and then we can write to our senators and register our opinions on M$ so they can ignore us as they cash another check from them.
the herfindahl index.
.9^2, or .81, which is very high indeed.
.18) is considered highly concentrated. They're applying it to M&A here, but you get the idea.
[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2
So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their index would be upwards of
Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.
The DOJ, at least here, uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the same thing, only without the decimals. So, while the Herfindahl index goes from 1 (total domination of market) to 0 (atomistic competition), the HHI goes from 10000 to 0. According to the site, anything above 1800 (or, by the other scale,
ceci n'est pas un sig.
with a toothbrush...
There is a war going on for your mind.
I wasn't aware that throwing rocks through shop windows and fighting with police was considered "peaceful" by some. In that assumption, I erred.
Go crawl back under your bridge.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Actually, a monopoly is defined as:
a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.
This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
Thalia
So the lawyers give up? When peaceful legal avenues are closed, the only recourses left are violent and/or illegal. What we have here is more like a "software mafia" than legal corporations.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I am not in favor of this settlement by any means, but...
(1) Department of Justice is arguing in favour of the proposed settlement, because the government's case was too weak to impose additional penalties on Microsoft.
Of course the DOJ is "arguing in favor" of their own settlement. They helped draft it, for goodness sake, and now they must defend it before the judge who will either accept or reject the deal.
(2) Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..."
I believe this comment could be applied to many court settlements. After all, a settlement is generally when the two parties make concessions with one another. But let's be fair: This is indicative of the US judicial system, not just the Microsoft trial.
In any case, based on the AP article, the settlement has yet to be sanctioned by the judge, and indeed, she is making certain that the DOJ is thoroughly explaining why they *did* settle.
And let's not forget that AOL is taking legal action against MS. Even if this horrible settlement goes through, MS's battle is far from over. Just a shame it has reached this point...
Of course they don't. Here's how they define it:
linkWhat, praytell, would this "multimedia middleware" be? From all descriptions, it appears to be none other than Windows Media Player, or a subset thereof.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Ah, Microsoft got their hands on the new speedpass watch! This thing is more powerful than we thought.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
This case was mishanded by the DOJ from day one. The stupid idea of using the so-called browswer issue blew it. If this case was solely on MS business practices it would be a done deal now.
DOJ probably figure take what we can, and hope we don't lose that in the Supreme Court appeal that will be MS's next step. This thing isn't over and won't be for quite awhile.
The people behind this case didn't study MS's history in situations like this, MS will delay and delay until whatever is done won't matter any more.
"Without causation, there's nothing to remedy," Warden said. Moving ahead with further litigation to determine a remedy--that is, penalties against Microsoft--would not have gotten the government anything more, he said. "One doesn't get two bites of the apple." [emphasis mine]
Oooooh. That one is a stinker. Two bites at the Apple. Har har. Try three or four. Microsoft is taking bites out of everything in their path. Wedging into the server room and coming to a family room near you!
The pendulum sure is swinging faaaaarrrr to the right these days. Next the gov't will agree to pay MS legal fees as compensation for disturbing their business</joke>. Even though they have still been found guilty, the gov't feels they don't have enough of a case to seek penalties?
I committed criminal acts, in order to secure my well-being. I am guilty. But thou shalt not punish me. Where is the accountability???
It says that the DOJ was explaining. Believe it if you can.
I'm afraid that that argument blows my suspension of disbelief.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Jane User: Help us Bill, you're our only hope.
Gates: If you strike me down, I shall only become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Uh-oh. Thanks alot Jane...
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
> You do know that there are plea bargains in criminal trials, as well, right?
Uh, plea bargains are generally arranged *before* the defendant is convicted.
Chris Mattern
Bush Jr's presidency was bought and paid for by the country-club Republicans he so aptly represents.
Is it any surprise that they didn't also buy the loyalty of his chief policy makers, like the DOJ.
What I find so richly ironic about the obvious political biases of the Republican DOJ is the constant nattering the Replublicans have done throughout time regarding the political activism of the Supreme Court.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the law, not do it selectively or caprciously.
How does this exercise in deliberate obtuseness get moderted "insightful"? The parent to your post (which although intemperate is not a "troll" as it has been moderated) asserted that the majority of the "anti-globalization protesters" were peaceful and that only a few individuals ("randoms" in the words of the parent) were violent.
Your response to that was to misrepresent what was said. You are correct that Microsoft's business practices are not the same as as what happened on September 11. By that same token, exercising free speech rights by participating in protests where some people cause property damage and/or fight with the police is not the same as what happened on September 11 either. They are not on even the same continuum. When you implied they were similar, you were the one trolling.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
The corperation/person is not saying anything. They are giving money to canidates to do something for them. IF they were truely for 'free speach' they would say I/WE/MEGACORP WOULD LIKE YOU TO VOTE FOR XYZ CANIDATE. Instead, they donate money to try and win favors. That in my book is bribery. If I saw an ad from Ford, Microsoft, etc saying vote for soandso, that would be free speach in my opinion, not the here we will give you $xx million. Corperations likely hide because most of them think that their support would damage the canidate's case.
In other words, the free speach arguement is a load of stuff, as the big contributors don't speak about it.
The morning session ended with Brad Smith, Microsoft's incoming general counsel, who said that the company was already trying to comply with the terms of the settlement proposal.
I wondered what was going on over at Microsoft with the recent Kerberos protocol documentation release. It seems to me that this could be a clever and subtle move by Microsoft. Imagine what would happen if for some reason the settlement was rejected. Microsoft can now claim that in an effort to be good citizens they attempted to comply with the proposed settlement and released several protocols. In other words they can now claim that the cat is out of the bag and the settlement must be allowed. This claim is specious at best but could be used to extend this process for years. Hmmm....
It was even more narrow than that. It was IBM-PC x86 compatible computers which run Windows.
Linux and other operating systems were discounted in Jackson's findings of fact and regarded as being part of a separate market.
Yeah, not like our american friends with their pollution free industries.
What is "their goverment" - who is this evil government intent on increasing its national debt by selling you steel for cheaper than it costs to make?
no sig.
> None of this is that surprising.
. sh tml
Actually, there is a weird twist or two here.
I did a little googling on Philip Beck, the attorney who is in charge of the DOJ team, expecting to find a colorless hack who rode his connections to his current position (like another person in the current administration), only to find he has some positive creds -- at least at first glance. See
http://www.nlj.com/staging/special/1224loy-beck
and
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168507.html
Frankly, I don't what to make of these two bits of information. Did someone talk Beck into taking a dive over this case, is he someone different from these two stories, or is he correct about the case?
I still believe though, if this were a just universe, Bill Gates would be sentenced to live his life inside a bubble where all the life support functions ran on an NT box.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I just read in the paper this morning that Prez W. just signed something so that now, approval for mergers between media, software, telecom and entertainment companies are under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ antitrust group, not the FTC. This is the same USDOJ that's currently arguing in favor of Microsoft. Somebody's getting paid off, big time.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The DOJ wants the monopoly on the yellow properties, so they allow Microsoft to keep their monopoly on Boardwalk and Park Place in exchange for getting Marvin Gardens.
OK, that was reaaaaaaly bad. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'm a Canadian. The fate of this case directly affects me. Why is my only option to just sit and watch?
Things like this make me ashamed to be an American...
Why not ? I submit all my resumes in HTML format, and I've never had a problem with it. Word is quite capable of reading HTML.
It's been the United States of America Inc for a long time. Wouldn't be the first time that policy (foreign and domestic) has been used to advance corporate objectives *cough* Gulf War *cough*.
No, the first example would be the Spanish/American war at the end of the 19th century.