| 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 |
 |
51 Antitrust Enforcers: 50 Too Many | |
|
||
| Time: 15:09 EST/20:09 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
It's been 10 years since the Microsoft antitrust case began. The cost of the litigation - in time, money, and diversion of executive resources - has been enormous. With the nation transfixed by Enron's $60 billion collapse, it's worth recalling that Microsoft's shareholders suffered an $80 billion erosion in market value on a single day - April 3, 2000, when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his conclusions of law. Now the case continues on two parallel tracks: (1) In a Washington, D.C. courtroom, a federal judge ponders whether a long-awaited settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department serves the public interest. (2) In that same court, before the same judge, nine defecting states - out of 20 who had originally joined the federal suit - demand that Microsoft's conduct be more severely restricted. Both court proceedings are based on the same trial, the same findings of fact, and the same conclusions of law. Both proceedings allege the same injuries to the same people. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 161 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:59:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 3/27/2002 3:56:11 PM |
| Bloody well right! |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/27/2002 4:14:53 PM |
| Bloody well wrong! Quality Propaganda though from the good ole CATO. This'll get interesting when the D.O.J. gets to put forth their view on the matter. They can say they are opposed to states rights and around 15 of antitrust precedent; say they agree with the law of our federal gov't; or wimp out and not give an opinion at all, but the fact of the matter is: our current antitrust laws says it's A-Okay, there is plenty of precedent, and there is good argument that the D.O.J. is not acting in the interest of the public--their lack of an opinion so far doesn't help. April 15th is the important day. |
| #3 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 3/27/2002 5:02:49 PM |
| SodaJerk, No matter what people say you are against it!! Why is that? Anyway, this is a waste of the taxpayers money, and I as a taxpayer am sick of it all. One thing I keep saying is this, the Antitrust laws are supposed to protect the people, yet I have not heard of an actaul consumer ever complaining about anticompetive practices. The only people complaining are the competitors, this is unacceptable in my view. No consumer has been hurt by MS innovating, strong arming, or creating a better product that is priced to sell. Only Competition crying because they can't sell there product or innovate as well as MS. Tough crap for them, design a better product if you can't sell the existing one, that is how business in the US has run for over 100 years. Why all of a sudden does one get punished for selling a decent product? Yes they should stop there practices that got them in this mess, but get it over with, this crap has been going on for 10 years, and it will keep going on as long as MS has the money or it is finally finished. Either way they win, they will not be broken up(since that would creat two monopolies instead of one). If they lose they will most likely pull the product from the market and kill everyone in the process, since there is no viable replacement for Windows as a desktop OS. So what the hell is the point of wasting my money and the rest of the taxpayers money, they will still be there, but they may become a little nicer to the OEM's, this will not help the people at all. We will still see everything the same as it is now. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/27/2002 5:09:27 PM |
|
I'm against what Levy is saying because he is ignoring the precedents which established that states can pursue antitrust law.
"Yes they should stop there practices that got them in this mess, but get it over with, this crap has been going on for 10 years, and it will keep going on as long as MS has the money or it is finally finished." Yes, exactly. MS should grow up and learn how to behave; as long as they continue behaving the way they do, this will keep going on. Stop complaining about the DOJ, the States, the EU, and 3 competitors and start complaining about MS's behavior. "Either way they win, they will not be broken up (since that would creat two monopolies instead of one)." Not exactly--I figure there are 2 years left to this trial; several more years of other trials; after another 5 years of this, I think it's going to start to hurt MS--nevermind the other shifts occurring in the marketplace. "If they lose they will most likely pull the product from the market and kill everyone in the process, since there is no viable replacement for Windows as a desktop OS." This is such a bunch of baloney--this is a weak ass MS tactic and if they do get hit hard and all of their plans and usual behaviors are denied them, they will still figure out how to stay in business. |
| #5 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 3/27/2002 5:21:11 PM |
|
Why should MS grow up and let there competitors see there code, and be forced to redisign there software. MS's OS and code are not the reason the competitors are dying off left and right. So what your saying is, that it is MS fault that teh competition can't compete? Yeah that makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Just let them bend over and not fight for themselves. The competition is getting a free ride here, the US taxpayers are paying for there fight. Let them sue on there own and than see how long they last before they are out of money. And as far as MS running out of money, as long as there is no competing OS they will never die. There market cap is way to high to kill them, shit they have enough cash on hand to make one hell of a dent in the nations debt, so I don't see this as breaking them at all. So once again it is a waste of our money. The states will never win and MS will drag it out as long as is humanly possible. But the point you miss everytime is the one about harming consumers. Tell me when they harmed me as a consumer.
Edit: Also you think that nine states should decide what a company can do in the other 41. This post was edited by mctwin2kman on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 17:26. |
| #6 By 20 (24.243.32.227) at 3/27/2002 5:25:03 PM |
|
Despite sodajerk's out-of-hand dismissal of this article, there is a fact that he ignores: Why should 9 states outvote and outrule the other states and the Federal government?
The answer? They shouldn't. I'd love to see the DOJ or other states sue the 9 states for disenfranchisement. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/27/2002 5:27:54 PM |
| mctwin, if you want to deny the numerous examples of when MS has been faced with being way behind a competitor or deciding that a competitor poses a threat and then doing everything at their disposal to accomplish their goals--pricing, FUDing, closing relationships thru their relationships, suing, changing their code, locking out software, holding back APIs, buying out companies, etc, etc, etc..., enjoy your weird little world. My point is MS could have gotten to where they are today and still be considered a good corporate citizen. Unfortunately, they weren't good citizens even when they were a 20 person company, and they are now a monopoly with power with no desire to change, no admission of what they are, and they will continue to behave the way they do because it's the only way they know. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/27/2002 5:31:19 PM |
|
daz, because the DOJ doesn't go far enough, makes a mockery of the judicial system, doesn't do anything to establish a precedent regarding technological tying (which will some day be necessary), isn't acting in the public interest, and because without something more effective, there will simply be another case in a couple of years. I would rather avoid seeing MS ever going back to court again. But otherwise, I fear that it's inevitable.
Particularly with the way our current White House behaves, I see it being very clear why the DOJ shouldn't have sole authority in such matters. |
| #9 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/27/2002 6:22:02 PM |
|
Not once have I heard a valid response to the question "How has MS hurt the consumer" Can anybody give an example, study, stats, etc. Nobody has ever said how their tactics have hurt Joe Citizen.
And this article is right the states have no jurisdiction to enforce Anti Trust... they can only bring the case to the Federal Government. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/27/2002 6:28:56 PM |
| kunkun and Humpty, the fact of the matter is the precedent was set in the early 80s to allow states to pursue antitrust claims, and sicne then there have been several important cases which have firmly established the precedent. And there have been no attempts to overturn this ruling at the Supreme Court level in the interim--so in fact, they do have the right. That's why this is so pathetic; Levy knows this, but he doesn't cite those cases or even mention that to you. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/27/2002 8:56:29 PM |
|
Actually I think the only thing pathetic here is.... oh never mind, mama always said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
|
| #12 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/28/2002 11:41:05 AM |
|
Still SodaJerk, nobody, including yourself, has answered the simple question, " How has MS hurt the consumer".
And yes "states [can] pursue antitrust claims" but they are not the enforcers of such laws. They may simply bing the claims to the government. Just as the owner of a stolen car can bring claims against the person who stole the car... they cannot change the outcome of the trial. The prosecutors, in this case the DOJ, handle that. The person who got the car stolen may, if he or she decides to, can sue in civil court if he/she does not like the result of the trial. Just as the states could sue MS individually. |
| #13 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 3/28/2002 6:08:01 PM |
| SodaJerk, once again sidesteping my question to you. But I will bite, #9, that is what companies do, they try to destroy the competition and make better products. What they do to the competition, buying them out or making there software not work, is purely legal. It is MS's software to do what they please with, while maintaining or increasing there customer base. That is business, the big fish eats the little fish. Intel tries it with AMD, Dell tries it with Gateway and the rest. There are plenty of companies trying to outdue there competition, if you do not do this they will get you instead. I mean what world do you live in where a company should not try everything they can to outdue the competition. Why don't you actually read and absorb what the rest of the posters are saying instead of just refuting everything that anyone in here says. Reading and comprehension is your friend.... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 161 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:59:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
