| 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 |
 |
MS refuses judge's order, antitrust meltdown to follow? | |
|
||
| Time: 02:36 EST/07:36 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Two days ago Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order demanding a measure of compromise from the warring parties, and yesterday Microsoft refused to comply. So the scene is now set for a collision that could take down the DoJ-Microsoft settlement and set the whole trial roadshow in motion again. CKK was hearing closing arguments in the dissenting states antitrust case yesterday, and had told the states and Microsoft to come up with some flexibility. The states did, Microsoft did not, and although we should take into account that it was actually a lot more difficult for Microsoft to bend, by utterly rejecting the notion it is playing a dangerous game for high stakes. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:37:01 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (208.61.157.63) at 6/23/2002 8:53:01 AM |
|
Sure the States did. They just want MS to give away its intellectual properties, waste its money ports apps to the OSes the States decides to help etc. Give me a break! This post was edited by Fritzly on Sunday, June 23, 2002 at 08:54. |
| #2 By 931 (24.98.84.138) at 6/23/2002 12:16:14 PM |
|
#2 is correct. I've alway said it should just threaten to move to the nice chuck on land it bought in canada in 1997, I believe it was over 650 acers. They should start playing some serious hardball, they have been more then co-operative to this point. Frankly if I was bill I would purchased cuba and moved the company there. :--)
|
| #3 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/23/2002 4:28:02 PM |
|
#5: No, it's when the government allows a company's competitors dictate how that company is persecuted. Persecuted without sufficient cause. When MS agrees to a fair settlement, the companies bribe 9 states to keep the pressue and ask the government to seek outrageous penalties that violate all sorts of rights. The punishment that the States seek far exceeds the minor violations that MS has perpetrated.
MS should call out the States corruption and let them know that they're not going to take it anymore. By doing this, consumers will realize that the governmen has far exceeded its bounds and forced everyone to suffer as a result. Personally, I don't think MS would have to doing something as rash as leave the country to point this out. I think this feeling is already growing. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/23/2002 4:47:40 PM |
|
#5 - Sigh... so typical of someone who doesn't understand the issues in this case.
|
| #5 By 2332 (165.247.1.221) at 6/23/2002 7:10:25 PM |
| #8 - Wow... I sincerely hope you are trying to be funny, because your statements suggest nothing but ignorance. |
| #6 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 6/23/2002 10:23:41 PM |
| #12, I think you made some great points, but that should only happen if MS decides to do it. It can't be forced. Now that I have said that, I think there is no way MS would do that. And I think you are slightly incorrect about the piracy thing, I think that would make it not only a lot easier to pirate (strip out activation [sure, it would be hard but it would be done]) and I think that would make it more prevalent. |
| #7 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 1:01:04 AM |
|
#11, Microsoft isn't even the biggest company in the computer industry, let alone of any industry.
#14, If you honestly think that, then you really have no clue. First, Microsoft will still be around in 20yrs as a dominant player in the industry, and will always be around (just like IBM). The inudstry is already run on open standards, how do you think you are using the internet, check e-mail, etc... open standards. Oh wait, but by open standards, you mean open source (which does not mean the same thing at all). Do you actually think that ANY company innvates just for the sake of innovation? Companies innovate in order to gain more money in their current market as well as to spread to other markets (because the consumer likes those innovations)... and this is how EVERY company is, if you don't see that, then you are utterly blinded by your hatred for Microsoft. Well gee, let's see, unless you are using a cross-platform language to create an app, you have to run the apps on the 'right' platform, no matter the platform. Don't know about you, but I don't have to download daily security patches, and even if I did, I wouldn't worry about it so much simply because I'm not paranoid (and I don't hate Microsoft and therefore am not looking for ways to bash them, such as yourself). I hate to say it, but there are no benefits to having open source (which is what you reall mean, not open system) in a commercial environment. You are right on exactly one thing, people are moving to an improved model of software development, and it's based on the .NET Acrchitecture and webservices. You better start getting used to the fact that both a) You really have no clue as the what you are talking about and just spreading pure drivel, and b) Open Source is not the answer to all problems in software development. |
| #8 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/24/2002 12:11:21 PM |
| Jagged: He's probably a big supporter of the Findings of "Fact" |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:37:01 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
