Slashdot Mirror
Seven States Extend Microsoft Antitrust Judgment
Technical Writing Geek writes "A number of states have moved to extend antitrust judgments against Microsoft until the year 2012. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia are all contributing to the decision, and have released a report on the factors that lead to the extension. 'The report laments the state of OEM web browser bundling, saying that no major OEM currently distributes a browser other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE). This is important due to the rise of new middleware platforms (such as Adobe's AIR and Microsoft's own Silverlight) that can create rich, OS-independent, web-based applications.' The report is slightly self-contradictory, but raises some valid points."
I thunk he meaneth FrontPage!
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
While true in a general sense, this statement is not true in the context of many important federal laws. In particular, relevant to the issue here, in the context of the Clayton Act which authorizes suits by State attorneys-general to enforce certain provisions of anti-trust law, a "State" is defined (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15g) thus:
So the initial moderation of your post as "off-topic" was quite proper; insofar as it is true at all, it is true only in a sense irrelevant to the present discussion.
More relevant to the present discussion, as far as the laws allowing State attorneys-general to sue for antitrust violations are concerned, the District of Columbia is a state (see 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15g).