| 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 |
 |
States' economist refuses to endorse some Microsoft antitrust sanctions | |
|
||
| Time: 12:50 EST/17:50 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
An economist testifying on Monday on behalf of nine states suing Microsoft Corp. for antitrust violations refused to endorse some of the states' proposed sanctions. Economist Carl Shapiro said a provision that would force Microsoft to disclose the blueprints to the access software for its MSN online service is likely to help rival America Online, but perhaps not consumers. Under questioning from Microsoft lawyer Michael Lacovara, Shapiro called the provision an "inappropriate taking of Microsoft's intellectual property." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/15/2002 1:03:59 PM |
|
Musta been paid off.
*cough* |
| #2 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/15/2002 1:09:34 PM |
| Um, NONE OF THIS STUFF helps the consumer, it ALL helps MS' competitors! HELLO?! |
| #3 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/15/2002 1:32:09 PM |
|
This has got to be the most stupid provision in the states' remedy I have heard. What does anyone (consumer) gain from putting MSN Explorer in the public domain, and what does it even have to do with Windows other than running on the platform? It's just a customized version of IE.
Is AOL that afraid of MSN Explorer? Do they want to kill it so they don't have to keep rushing unfinished AOL builds out just to keep up with MSN's version numbers? #5 Some of the AGs keeping this case going are Republican. This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 13:33. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/15/2002 1:58:20 PM |
|
n4cer - This is actually the first time I've heard about MSN Explorer being forced into the public domain. I agree. What possible good would this have? Does AOL want to interoperate with MSN Messenger? Why don't they just work on a instant messaging spec instead instead of being so damned proprietary.
adrianaw - "It amazes me how a pro-MS person can be at the same time pro-Democrats. " It amazes me how stupid some people can be wtih regards to politics. Keep in mind that both Robert Bork(responsible for the Saturday night massacre during Watergate) and Kenneth Starr(Independent[*cough*] Counsel responsible for the failed coup against Clinton) are working with these non-settling states in support of this anti-trust matter. Here, go read what they wrote for the court: http://www.procompetition.org/headlines/012802.pdf Then you look at the nine non-settling states, and while 7 of them have Democratic Attorney Generals, 2 of them have Republican. 5 of the states have Republican Governors, 3 have Democrat and 1 has an Independent. The point is, there are many things in this world that do not fall down across party lines. This case happens to be one of them. This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 13:59. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/15/2002 2:38:43 PM |
|
macrosslover - I agree. The bullying with regards to exclusionary licensing with regards to the Windows OS I think is unfair and is the real basis for the lawsuit. My problems with the case all revolve around the silly Netscape stuff.
Bush is a slow learner. He's now learning that Clinton was right all along with regards to the middle east and is finally starting to pay attention. Sending Powell over there is a good move and we'll have to see how it works out. Having a former General negotiate peace deals is powerful, especially the reluctant General who doesn't want to deploy troops, but can back it up with powerful action if it comes to it. That "We will surround them, and we will kill them." attitude ought to scare anybody thinking about going up against him. I also heard the UN President talking about sending peace keeping troops to the area. It may very well come to that, and if that happens they will be mostly American troops deployed, some British and maybe some Malaysian or Pakistani to balance off a Muslim presence. |
| #6 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/15/2002 3:27:00 PM |
|
The people still involved in the MS case are neither Republicans nor Democrats. They are merely self-serving power-abusing taken louses who only answer to money.
The large companies who "compete" with Microsoft who are based in these states have purchased the use of the State AG's. There is no more politics involved, it is all money and MS' "competitors" pushing the case and trying to get the source for Windows. There is no logical reason why anyone would push for the disclosure of the source for Windows and/or IE. The only reason is that AOL, SUN, et al are buying that "feature" from the States AGs. And the whole concept of anti-trust or "leveling the playingfield"/fairness in business is a socialist/lieberal idea in the first place. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.175.40.46) at 4/15/2002 6:23:22 PM |
| daz, you do know that Theodore Roosevelt -- THE Trust Buster -- was a Republican/Bull Moose, right? It is NOT a liberal idea in the first place. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/15/2002 10:16:20 PM |
| #13 - Wow... Sodajerk... nice. I think that's probably the first thing you've ever posted that I liked the first time I read it. :-) |
| #9 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/15/2002 10:48:06 PM |
| Thank you, thank you (bows). I got a feeling you wouldn't have liked what I almost included though: "The idea is about protecting freedom in the first place." Right, you are still against Antitrust law? No one appreciates T.R. anymore--now that guy was a badass who had his own ideas... |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/16/2002 10:19:59 PM |
| You're right... I wouldn't have liked that. :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
