States Seek More Oversight of Microsoft

taoman1 writes "A group of states led by California said in a court filing Thursday that ending oversight of Microsoft's business practices in November would not allow enough time to consider the antitrust implications of Windows Vista. The states want oversight extended at least through early next year. 'The justice department said in its report that while Microsoft's operating system market share hasn't dropped because of the consent decree, "it would misapprehend the purpose of the Final Judgments to rely on these facts to argue that the Final Judgments have been ineffective. Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully." In its report, Microsoft directly countered California's claims and said, the "Final Judgments were never designed to reduce Microsoft's share in any putative market."'"

Comments

Re:What?

[Strudelkugel]

What the hell do you call all of the RICO violations that Microsoft has been guilty

RICO violations? Do you have links to prove that Microsoft violated RICO laws? Here's a link about RICO.

I'm repopulating an old case with new hardware. I intend to run Linux and Windows. No one is forcing me to by Windows for the new hardware. No one ever has forced me to buy Windows when I didn't want it. No one hindered my purchase of an iMac. Microsoft is not, and never was an effective monopoly in my experience. "Oh but the court said so!" The Supreme Court also decided this at one time. Here is another court decision to consider. Generally court rulings are correct, but they are far from flawless. If Microsoft is a monopoly by virtue of its market share, why isn't Intel?

Re:Not a good thing

[gfxguy]

I don't need to go educate myself, I'm fully aware of what MS has done in the past, and I don't "do business with Microsoft." But then that's my perogative, isn't it?