Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Anti-Trust Rulings Due Tomorrow
ewhac writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will deliver her opinions on the Microsoft anti-trust suit tomorrow, after close of markets. Much speculation revolves around whether she will approve or reject the settlement negotiated by the Justice Department. Should she reject it, she can only offer suggestions for improvement; she cannot impose amendments. Watch this site for further developments :-)." Reader acacia points out that the opinions should be posted at this site, if you want a quick bookmark.
Hefty fine? Microsoft has $40 BILLION of illegally-obtained cash. A fine won't matter AND WON'T STOP THEM.
(The reason they won't pay it out in dividends is so a few extremely rich guys can avoid paying the taxes that would be due on it. An illegal tax-avoidance scheme.)
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
She is reponsible for two different rulings. The email today that she would deliver her 'Opinions' (see: plural). The first ruling is whether the settlement is in the public interest. This she can only accept or reject. The other opinion is far more detailed. She could very well break up the company with this other ruling. Hope that helps.
She may be a little more impartial than you believe..
The announcement was made after the close of trading today. MSFT is trading down 67 cents in after hours reflecting the general uncertainty about the outcome.
Mmmm.. Donuts
All judgement decisions of publically traded corporations are released after the market closes.
Just as earnings statements are released after market close.
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
What billions in tax dollars?
t ml
u le maker000217.htm
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/4526.h
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/r
Then they will say that MS is a monopoly.
You have got to be kidding, The term monopoly in this context has a specific legal meaning. During the first trial Microsoft was proven IN A COURT OF LAW to be a Monopoly, AND to have violated the law by illegally using that monopoly position to stifle competition.
This appeal is related to determining the penalties for the abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft. The issue of whether Microsoft is a monopoly has been determined.
IIRC, "Not guilty. Doh!" is not an option. The appeals court upheld the FoF, we're just arguing about whether to give MS a timeout or whether they're grounded.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Anyone interested in MS's Political Contributions? Or how they've fluctuated over the years? Check out This Page to get started.
Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.
Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Umm.. Not really. Judge KK recently gained a bit of attention for her activities as head of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. That's the secret court that supervises the DoJ and Atty Gen. Asscroft's shredding of civil rights. She nailed Asscroft to the wall for his lies and abuses. This is a woman that has already shown her willingness to stand up to the Atty General. Here's a typical story:p agename= article&node=&contentId=A51220-2002Aug22¬Found= true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
I believe that if she rejects, they have to come up with a NEW agreement. The DoJ can not just go and randomly impose whatever they want. They would have to go redraft a new settlement.
Her recommendations, if she gives them, are simply "here's a framework for what this settlement should look like. You better be close to this next time you show up here in my courtroom".
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001-email.h tml
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Er, there were certainly others, at least in the DOS days. Hell, there was even a DOS clone back then, called DR-DOS (DR = Digital Research; if memory serves, it was later bought by Novell, then by Caldera). There were other multitasking environments back then, such as Desqview and GEM Windows. There was even an IBM-Microsoft partnership -- recall OS/2? Of course, that was before MSFT basically stabbed IBM in the back...
/new/ system -- interoperability would be critical.
But as for developing a
(1) Nobody wants to migrate their entire application base, especially if it's impossible because the devs won't port it because the market is too small (Catch-22 here).
(2) Nobody wants to lose access to their documents or ability to exchange files with others, when the porting fails and nobody successfully, completely re-implements the different formats.
If you can't interoperate with the dominant software (e.g. Microsoft Office and its document formats, WordPerfect w/n the legal domain) you'll have serious problems spreading.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Microsoft escapes ...
IIRC, SCOTUS was asked to "fast-track" the case, bypassing some of the appeals process in the interest of time -- since a year or two is an eternity or two in the computer industry. They decided against fast-tracking it and said it should go through the normal appeals process before returning to SCOTUS. So they didn't reject the case, they just rejected the option of giving it special treatment.
Excellent post, though I would like to correct one point. You said:
An appeals court threw out the breakup ruling on the grounds that Jackson was biased
The appellate court actually said "we find no evidence of actual bias ". They overturned Jackson because he violated judicial standards about talking to the press which could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Appeal if they like but historically the Supreme Court tends to reject hearings on cases like this where no Constituional questions are asked. Unless Microsoft's defense is that Anti-Trust laws are unfair and unconstituional the Supreme Court probably won't hear the case. It is of course their right to appeal as many times as they want but more than not the Supreme Court finds that the lower courts were in order and refuses to hear the case.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microso
This is a great writeup from a guy who had a lot of access to the players with the understanding that he wouldn't publish until after the trial. I wish it would get turned into a book.
My favorite part about this is how it shows you the isolation that Gates and others live(d) in--he really seems to think he was innocent.
Another interesting revelation in this is that Gates micromanaged the law team.
Liberty uber alles.