| 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 |
 |
Frequently Asked Questions on the Microsoft Antitrust Case | |
|
||
| Time: 17:36 EST/22:36 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Question: Didn't damning evidence emerge during the trial tarnishing Microsoft's credibility and showing their experts to be dishonest? For example, didn't Microsoft submit a phony videotape claiming to refute Dr. Felten's Internet Explorer "removal program"? Answer: This is a charge—much like the alleged sabotage of Apple QuickTime—which was later proved to be completely false but still lives on in the minds of the public (and some journalists) as if it were true. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 385 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:52:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.254.240.94) at 1/8/2002 11:02:16 PM |
| Quite an interesting article. The "we-sue-Microsoft business plan" made me laugh. The attack on Caldera's suit was also amusing. Not amusing because I don't believe the author, but because despite the absurdity of many attacks such as these against Microsoft, the company still has to defend itself againts them to a an all too gullible government. |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/8/2002 11:05:06 PM |
|
Everybody who frequents ActiveWin.com knows I'm pretty Pro-Microsoft...
So, I feel it's my duty to point out that the source of this article is, obviously, extremely biased in their assement of the Microsoft case. They leave out several bad things Microsoft did, and concentrate completely on the strong points Microsoft has on its side. Given that, I still agree with most of what the FAQ said. I just want to make sure people are thinking objectively, and not accepting this as the only viewpoint. Microsoft isn't some perfect example of the ideals of capitalism, nor are they a perfect examples of an evil empire. I think the majority of the evidence points to a Microsoft which did not deserve the punishments it was given by Jackson, and that's a big reason I've defended Microsoft over the past few years. Anyway... using the links off that page, I ended up learning about Objectivism (Ayn Rand's doctrine) which is very interesting, so despite the article's questionable validity, I learned quite a bit nonetheless. :-) |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/9/2002 12:34:14 AM |
|
Well I certainly agree, RMD. I did read all of Jackson's findings of facts and so on, and based off what I see as the real evidence the proposed remedy from the DOJ is the appropriate conclusion to this trial. But there is a lot of Jackson's facts that show a limited understanding of the computer market, which is disappointing and best left to be ignored.
But I do ever so much love the "we-sue-Microsoft" business plan, and all the rats who have come out of the wood work to support it. Like all the people upset with the proposed remedy in the overcharge consumers lawsuit, as if they have a chance in winning the case to begin with. So I like to tweak them, and this article is funny. :) There was another article linked off news.com about McNealy. Basically said Sun needs to change it's business model from "anything but Microsoft" into something that can sell product. They've had a signifigant downturn this past year. |
| #4 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 1/9/2002 10:05:57 AM |
|
#7 Businesses shouldn't be exempt from obeying the law. The issue is that when you compare one industry (where for the sake of argument we'll say Jackson has experience) against a rather unrelated industry (where for the sake of argument we'll say that Jackson has no experience or even apptitude for understanding) you can't apply your understanding of one to both industries. Jackson did that.
Saying that Microsoft illegally comingled the code of Windows Explorer with Internet Explorer not because it made for better code design, but so that Internet Explorer would be welded into windows is just foolishness. It's like telling an artist that he can't use red and orange together on the same canvas. Jackson or any other person who doesn't understand a thing (code design in this case) shouldn't make a judgement on it. |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/9/2002 11:13:44 AM |
|
Morality should *never* be enforced by law. Period.
Laws should on be based off the premise that people should be able to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't physically hurt the person or property of another non-consenting adult. If morals happen to match up with that premise, so be it - but a law should never be based off a moral command. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2002 1:35:40 PM |
|
I don't agree that our laws are based on morality. In the US the fundamental basis for our system is the natural inherent rights of Life, Liberty and the Right to own private property(aka happiness in the Declaration).
All of our laws follow those as their basis. I suppose you could call it morality, but our founding fathers for the most part used a more intellectual approach to this, that these natural laws transcend religion and all persons have them in common regardless of creed, faith and so forth. It's usually more appropriate to say that our laws are based on mores rather than morality. Morality is specific to a religion whereas mores are defined by a society. In our case the society of the US is secular in nature and does not conform to any one particular religious faith, so the term morality is not really applicable. Thus it is illegal to murder because you step upon my right to life. It is illegal to kidnap because you step upon my right to liberty. It is illegal to steal because you step on my right to own private property, and so forth. You also confuse communism with socialism. Communism does not provide for the ownership of private property, the purpose is to make all men equal at the lowest common denominator. Since you cannot own more than I, we eliminate the class structure. The US doesn't follow that philosophy at all. |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/9/2002 2:19:18 PM |
|
#10 - On the contrary, I think the line between law and morality is very clear.
It is very true that the United States has MANY laws based off morality, but I was making a claim of policy not of fact. Laws against drug use, prostitution, gambling, pornography (or any kind of censorship), etc... are all laws that fly in the face of the ideals of this country. But, nevertheless, they do exist... and this is one reason many people confuse morality with the real premise the United States' laws. At any rate, as sodablue said, we are not capitalist/communist, we are capitalist/socialist. A rough estimate would be 70% Capitalist, 30% Socialist. Some would argue that this shift toward socialism is one major cause of many of societies problems... I'm not sure I would take that position, however. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 385 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:52:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
