| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft ruling may blunt other cases | |
|
||
| Time: 14:19 EST/19:19 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Friday's antitrust ruling may give Microsoft powerful ammunition to defend against more than 60 private lawsuits pending against the software giant, legal experts say. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved, with few changes, a November 2001 settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine states. She then issued a revised settlement as her remedy in continued litigation brought by nine other states and the District of Columbia. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:51:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 11/4/2002 4:59:52 PM |
|
if the legal maneuver works for Microsoft, they call it a "technicality".
if the legal maneuver works for Microsoft's competitors, they call it "a hard earned victory". |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/4/2002 8:42:31 PM |
| Fredzilla2000 - Huh? It is a "risky scheme". Even the Republicans admit that, now that they are moving away from the idea. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/4/2002 10:48:52 PM |
|
Compare and contrast...
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/31/120612 "A law-and-order liberal, Page has led the state ticket in recent elections. According to Minnesota sources, he was eager to seek the Senate seat. But the DFL apparently did not want to risk running the African-American Page in an overwhelmingly Caucasian state, and Page was swiftly discouraged." Now the truth... http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/4425738.htm "Because of this week's extraordinary circumstances and the column's insidious use of race, Mr. Novak's comments require a response. Beyond the use of race, the column is, in its references to me, factually inaccurate," Page said. mhfm: The question is why do you keep bothering to post? It's not like anybody is going to agree with your hate speech. |
| #4 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/4/2002 11:14:59 PM |
|
soda, please stop taking the political bait. The more you spew, the fewer votes the Demos are gonna get tomorrow.
Can we PLEASE stick to technology? Fredzilla is EXACTLY right. Gore used that phrasing ON PURPOSE... regardless of whether it was true or not. Soda, can you show me where "the Republicans admit that"? |
| #5 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/4/2002 11:37:53 PM |
|
sodablue - I posted a long response to you HERE - http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?ThreadIndex=14154&Group=Last
I'll be monitoring that board for your response. |
| #6 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/4/2002 11:38:30 PM |
| excellent point mhfm... |
| #7 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 11/4/2002 11:48:24 PM |
| #10 - glad to hear you're not a Limbaugh listener. He is the be all and end all of ignorant malice. |
| #8 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/4/2002 11:51:33 PM |
|
RMD - dont get me wrong, if someone else wants to listen... power to them. Its a free world, at least for now. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Monday, November 04, 2002 at 23:52. |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/4/2002 11:52:11 PM |
|
From Sat.:
soda: If you think that democrats are somehow better than republicans, you are HIGHLY mistaken, both parties in general have their flaws, both attack the other party needlessly, etc.... Do NOT go and say that the Republicans are somehow evil while the democrats are not. I think that you are either a) incredibly stupid, or b) incredibly brainwashed into the thinking that one party is better than another. It's about what YOU believe in, what YOUR intrests are, what YOU think needs to change and what YOU think needs to stay the same. It's NOT about what this party is doing to that party, or what this party has done that is evil. There is NO POINT to this political war. Why pick sides? In the end, the issues that need to truely be taken care of NEVER get taken care of, the greater good is NEVER achieved. The whitewater comment was just an example in proving what I have stated above, it was not an attack on Bill or to the deomocratic party. I'll close with this: I am a registered republican, however, on Tuesday, I will NOT be voting for Jeb. Why is that? Because I feel he has done more harm than good to the state and needs to be taken out of office. It's not about the party, it's about the person running, what are his/her ideals, is that person able to get things done, etc... Anyway, that just my political philosphy, but what do I know, I'm just a 19yr old kid, right? |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/5/2002 12:08:47 AM |
|
mhfm (#8) I would indeed be surprised if ppl actuallly agreed with you. If this board is any indication of how much support from others you have for your arguments, then you have 1 vote for a specific comment among thousands which are against you. It seems to me that you are extremely in the minority. As I have stated before, it also seems to me that you are extremely wrong.
It seems to me that you understand very little about government - the different types, how it works, why it works, etc. It seems to me that you can't look beyond yourself to see why a government that does not cater to your desires may in fact be the better choice for the nation as a whole. You can't seem to see that what works for you is the exact opposite of what other people need. Oh, once again, you don't seem to see that socialism is an ideal society. If you understood what socialism is, then you'd realize that I'm right. It seems, though, that you've been blinded by fools like McArthy (sp?) of yesteryear and haven't gone to the trouble of understanding what it is you think you hate. I may as well stop writing, since I doubt you've even understood the little I just posted. Armed with your ignorance, you'll go on spouting out nonesense about things you do not understand. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/5/2002 12:13:36 AM |
|
m, what would you consider this - We are going to kill all Jews! - ? Most of us would call that hate speach. You'll likely argue that you didn't say that.
If I were to kill all Jews, what I would be doing is killing their physical bodies. What is worse than killing their physical bodies? Why, killing their spirits or souls. What does it mean to kill a spirit or soul? In the Christian world, this generally is referred to as the second death, spiritual death or something like it. This spiritual death, is to be separated from God after this life by burning in hell. You don't say that blue and will be physically killed. You say that he will be spiritually killed (which is, of course, much worse). Do you understand now why he considers your constant statements about him going to hell to be hate speach? |
| #12 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/5/2002 12:21:22 AM |
| actually, the ideal society is one without a government, although, in order for that society to work, it would have to be much more advanced than what we are today, and there could not be anything like different countries and such. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/5/2002 12:31:30 AM |
| No government? Human beings like structure. I'd say that without structure, the society wouldn't work too well. |
| #14 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/5/2002 12:41:05 AM |
|
That is as it is now, but in an ideal society, people will always do things for the greater good.
If people always do what is for the greater good, then there is no need for a government. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2002 1:13:08 AM |
|
CPUGuy - "I'm just a 19yr old kid, right? "
Ok, sorry for being so harsh on you. You weren't old enough to worry about most of the shit I'm pissed off about as this goes back to at least 1988 when I was 19 and thought of myself as a Republican. BTW, in 1988 I was a supporter of Bob Dole for President. With the exception of Fred Grandy in 1994, that was the last Republican I have supported for office in 14 years. It's interesting to note, both candidates I supported lost in primaries because they weren't hateful enough. (If you don't know Fred Grandy, go look up his record. If he ran for President tomorrow on the GOP ticket I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, he was that much of a statesman.) My point on Whitewater is that you tried to use it as an attack on Clinton, to prove that the parties are the same. That was actually the GOP purpose behind the fabricated scandal. So you have to congratulate them on a job well done, even if you were deceived by it. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 05, 2002 at 01:23. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2002 1:24:34 AM |
|
mhfm - Hate speech is using words like evil, marxist, socialist to describe things that are clearly not representative of those words. You do this to dehumanize the enemy. It is the same language which is used by nations when preparing for war. If you want other examples, look at the way Osama bin Laden is described, look at the way Saddam Hussein is described.
It's the same tactics the Linux proponents use. They call MS evil, they call Bill Gates the borg.. You're in good company. It's interesting to note that the Democrats have done more to support the tech industry than the Republicans, and yet you ignorant attack them for trying to put Microsoft out of business? One need only look at Gore's actual role in the creation of the Internet. (another good example of how the GOP distorts reality) http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ Speaking of Gore... When he spoke at Microsoft in early 2000 shortly after the Conclusions of Law were released he addressed the anti-trust issue quite clearly. We do have laws in this nation, those laws are designed to protect competition in the free market. Sometimes when a company steps beyond those laws, they need to be enforced. While I do not necessarily agree with the arguments put forth by the ABMers with regards to Microsoft, it has long been quite clear to me that Microsoft does engage in anti-competitive conduct. I am specifically referring to the exclusionary licensing, ridiculous agreements which prevent the OEMs from installing other operating systems, or other third party software. As it turned out I was right, and it was these issues that ultimately the courts agreed upon and dealt with in the remedy agreement which was just accepted. As BobSmith said the other day the courts in this nation do work most of the time and ultimately favor Justice, and this trial is a very good example of this. The ABMers were over the top, but that doesn't mean they were completely wrong. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 05, 2002 at 01:53. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2002 1:30:44 AM |
|
mooresa56 - Just so you know, when I left here on Saturday I was incredibly furious at your responses. Fortunately I went out with some friends to a comedy club and it was funny enough to help me take my mind off it.
I don't care if you don't listen to Limbaugh, you've obviously influenced by him, either from reading newsmax.com, American Spectator or the other right-wing propaganda pieces. It's a string of lies that I am very tired of shooting down. As I said to CPUguy, the GOP did a wonderful job at manipulating the media into believing there was truth there without providing any proof. You've got to give them credit for the job well done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anybody who believes any of the tripe reported in the news with regards to Clinton needs to go read David Brock's book. It'll be an eye-opening experience, and I dare you to defend against the allegations laid out within that tome. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 05, 2002 at 01:34. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2002 1:47:20 AM |
|
CPUGuy/BobSmith - The ideal society would be one where everything just works smoothly. No greed, no corruption, no striving to get one up on the other guy.
It would also be incredibly boring. I believe in Capitalism, I believe in human beings needing to strive against adversity, as it is the one commonality which exists in all of mankinds progress. Another ideal society might be the Benevolant Dictator. King Solomon would be my best historical example of this. But it relies upon the leader being a Saint. We don't get many Saints these days who wish to run a country. Our Constitution takes the attitude that no one man can be trusted. Actually they go further and believe that no small group of men can be trusted. All of those checks and counterbalances are there for that reason. There are a handful of things I would like to see changed(such as the use of instant run-off elections, which is not a Constitutional issue but one solely of election law), but the fundamental structure is quite sound. BTW, more info on IRV: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html I like the concept as it would help to eliminate the partisanship and negativity of our present day campaigns, so that we could instead focus on issues rather than personal attacks. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, November 05, 2002 at 01:56. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/5/2002 11:06:36 AM |
| It seems that you don't agree with me on the fire and brimstone not converting people. Besides, I think you are dead wrong. In your eyes, since I'm not Catholic, I'll be going to hell too. At any rate, that really doesn't have any place on this site. |
| #20 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/5/2002 1:46:00 PM |
|
khyron - It's very possible for someone to arrive at a different opinion.
However I expect such a person to then focus on issues rather than making broad sweeping generalizations like "Democrats are marxists", "Democrats are evil", "Clinton was slime"... mhfm - You remind me of Satan quoting scripture when Jesus was in the desert. I think it's clear at this point that you are the envoy of the devil, as you certainly are not Christian. |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/5/2002 1:56:53 PM |
|
Gilligan - Interesting. I guess I would have to say that is what we have now. The two parties are controlled entirely by money, and the way to get money is to cater to special interests.
Now while an IRV would perhaps give more voice to some of the extremists, I think ultimately you'd find that the middle of the road candidate would win, as they would be the most appealing to the largest base. It may strengthen some of the extremist groups, but there's nothing wrong with having their input on issues. I just do not like seeing the constant swinging back and forth that we do now, as it is non-conducive to getting something accomplished that is meaningful. Imagine if every Congress was decided by a coalition. That the Senate majority was not just up in the air because of 1 man from Vermont, but rather because of 20 people from a variety of states. They decide they don't like the direction the leader is going, they take away their support. This would help eliminate the partisan divides, if there were more than two choices. |
| #22 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/6/2002 1:24:51 AM |
|
I've read the Gospels, if you are so familiar with it, why don't you specify some passages for me.
So, the bottom line is you say I go to hell because I'm not Catholic. If that's true, I'll wave to you, since you are surely going there too if your behavior on this site is indicative of the rest of your life. |
| #23 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/7/2002 10:29:26 PM |
|
sodablue -
Glad you got over your frustration with me. Didn't mean to have a too negative an effect on you. I respect your tech views more than any other on this site. But, I think we are both guilty of taking political bait on this site... far to often. --- Do I browse "newsmax.com"? Never before today. And then only so I could honestly answer your accusation. --- Have I ever read "American Spectator"? Never read a single word from it. --- Have I ever read other right-wing propaganda pieces? Depends on what you would call propaganda. I read the bible. Does that count? I enjoy reading Adam Smith. I wouldn't consider that "propaganda". Other than that, I read the mainstream news... msnbc, cnn, etc. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:51:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
