| 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 |
 |
The Non-Settling States Amend Their Remedy Proposal | |
|
||
| Time: 17:15 EST/22:15 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
|
The nine states still pursuing the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case on Monday modified their proposal for penalties against the company in response to criticism that it would create confusion in the computer industry. The states, including California, Connecticut and Iowa, said the changes would make it clear that Microsoft would not be required to sell several different versions of its Windows operating system. Instead, the company would have to sell just one "modular" version from which software features such as browsers, media players and instant messengers, could be removed, according to a statement from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 161 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:57:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/4/2002 5:47:36 PM |
|
Hmm, to paraphrase sodajerk... "Uh oh, this doesn't sound good for the states. They've already had to modify their remedy proposal. That obviously means they know they are in trouble!" :-)
Too bad they didn't fix that provision about Java. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:02:30 PM |
|
That's pathetic, soda--it was in regards to K-K allowing the competitors to testify that I made that statement, and you should know it. I see you haven't rebutted my assertion that you are flat out lying about the Article 2 code commingling in the post below, why not?
This is interesting though--it sounds to me like they are making some headway with that code. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/4/2002 6:10:20 PM |
|
#2 - Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the states expect with regards to IE. My feeling on it is that Microsoft should take the position that the HTML rendering engine is a substantial part of the OS, but iexplore.exe is not. Remove that one executable, and all links to it and ta da! IE is no longer there.
As far as sodajerk is concerned... for those playing the home game, he was just found guilty of perjury in another thread. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:22:32 PM |
| Perjury? What they hell kind of self-aggrandizement are you slipping into, soda? All you did was restate what I said--yes, art.1 tying claim remanded (not overruled by the way), but art. 2 monopoly maintenance, MS was found guilty of illegal commingling its code. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:26:58 PM |
| Feel free to attempt to deny the existence of section II. B. 2. of the Appeals Court decision in this post or in the one below, soda? Come on, I dare you, can you come to admit it or will you keep lying out your (shut your mouth)? |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:56:41 PM |
|
eeeh, troll... that's exactly what I'm trying to do, but having someone deny a major portion of the trial case makes it hard to discuss the issues, doesn't it? By the way, I'm also sick and tired of pulling out the court documents, but as long as soda refuses to admit it and tries to FUD the whole community by saying that in no way was it found illegal, I'll have to keep citing the case. Do I have it memorized, no, do I bring it in to work, no but I have... apparently, I have to keep doing so because there's way too much ignorance on the topic.
Oh, I can also say he's lying because we've been thru this before. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, March 04, 2002 at 19:54. |
| #7 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/4/2002 7:05:01 PM |
|
This new resolution sounds a whole lot better than what they cooked up earlier. I want to read the entire new proposed settlement before saying anything else about it.
Sodajerk, thanks for proving how special those of us with brains are. I find it hillarious that you try to pick fights with the "real" soda so much. Actually, I am kinda jealous... Why no redavengerJerk? Or rmdJerk? Or how about jaggedflameJerk? |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 7:18:45 PM |
| If you'd like to know Red, it was soda who first latched on to me. Whenever I would previously post as an anonymous, he would make these brilliant, cogent arguments about how I was constipated--since then I have adopted an identity. Maybe if soda admits his lies on this one, I'll retire the name. Sound good? |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/4/2002 8:08:39 PM |
|
Yes, I'd like to know if the laxative has been helping.
As I pointed out, your continued insistence that there is a valid tying claim, despite the appeals court saying that they need a better argument continues to baffle me. I quoted the relevant text from the appeals court decision, and yet you keep coming back for more. I'm really really getting sick of your distortion of the truth. Ohwell, no apology. No substance to your arguments. What's the point of me responding to you? |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/4/2002 8:14:21 PM |
|
BTW, on further review of this article and the Final proposed settlement... the states are now actually agreeing to Section III, subsection H. of the DOJ settlement. Microsoft has already committed to making a version of WinXP which is customizable in terms of the addition/subtraction of various middleware components.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov01/11-06revised.asp So basically what this article is saying is that the states now agree that aspect of the DOJ settlement is fine. Oh, and if you are really bored... Microsoft posted some of the depositions of Ballmer and Allchin today: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.asp This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, March 04, 2002 at 20:16. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 8:45:35 PM |
| No, substance to my argument? Whatever... I haven't said there was a tying claim; I said it was found illegally anticompetitive to commingle code which is not shared by shell and IE. Simple. It's an argument, it's substantive, it's been appealed and upheld, it's written in black and white. Meanwhile you're bringing back the exciting and original laxative line, is this your most intelligent argument or just your most persuasive? |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 9:27:38 PM |
| I've been reading the Ballmer depo and it reminds me of you sodablue so I figured out how to say it nice and clear: in Section II. B. 2. of the Appeals Court ruling, does it find two actions specifically to be illegal? If so, what are they? |
| #13 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/4/2002 11:19:21 PM |
| W/o these things, it's not Windows. It's basically just a kernel, a file system, and a UI (and it would be the Win95 style UI, if you chose to not install IE, because there would be no rendering engine in which to render the great amount HTML that is in Windows today, including help files. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/5/2002 1:18:08 PM |
| Most of the other engines are lacking in feature support, so you still couldn't guarantee rendering accuracy, which pretty mech makes them useless. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 161 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:57:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
