Slashdot Mirror
West Virginia Joins Massachusetts in MS Appeal Bid
diwolf writes "West Virginia is seeking to join Massachusetts in appealing a U.S. District Court decision that rejected a tough antitrust remedy sought by nine states in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case. This is also being reported at CNN and ZDNet."
It is quite clear that there will be no noteworthy changes to the original settlement
No, it isn't. When both higher courts toss it out, THEN it'll be clear. Until then, its' worth pursuing.
It is also quite clear that the main loser is going to be the taxpayer.
The lawyers pursuing the case the government lawyers paid a salary, not hourly wages. The taxpayers don't pay much extra by pursuing this case... and since MS has to reimburse the legal expenses of the government at market rate, the taxpayers will, if anything, MAKE money.
Check the date time stamps next time
The Register article Posted: 02/12/2002 at 14:24 GMT
The Slash Dot Comment by Anonymous Coward on 12:51 PM (EST) -- Monday December 02 2002
The Slash comment was posted after the Reg Article.
how dare they plagarize a future article like that
Think about it.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Link toOpen Letter to Microsoft Users, and to Commerce Commission Complaint.
The Mothership
Agreed.
It's not so much the application, iexplore.exe, that is the fundamental part of the OS, it's the MSHTML rendering engine that comes in the Internet Explorer backend DLLs.
Most applications, if they want to launch a web session or access HTML content, load an iexplore.exe inside of their own window, instead of rendering the page itself. Easier that way...
IE isn't just the program people use to browse the Internet; the API (seems) to involve quite a bit of talking to the application itself, not just the backend. Designed, no doubt, to make something like that easier -- for my database program to be able to show me the manufactuerer's web site, inside it's own window, while still correctly rendering all the scripts, etc.
(IANA Developer)
Last I heard, the states had $25 million to divvy up. California I believe had the largest share of expenses.
So Microsoft pays. It's a win-win, ha-ha. I doubt the states will be reimbursed more than actual costs. I also assume/hope the law has some safety valve against nonsense prolongation of the litigation, but this appeal sounds meritorious if doomed.
(And, it should be noted, an appeal costs peanuts compared to the $25 million -- tens of thousands, maybe. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind, they want to be sure this is done right.)
Virginia's Atty General is a screaming big business type. Furthermore, they weren't party to the original suit.
But the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the City of Virginia Beach's jank, anyway. The city is pretty much an independent government, as far as day-to-day (including computer) operations go.