| 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 |
 |
Judge Compares Microsoft to Tonya Harding | |
|
||
| Time: 15:01 EST/20:01 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Motz ruminated from the bench Thursday as attorneys gave their closing arguments in the three-day hearing on Sun's request to force Microsoft to carry the latest version of Sun's Java programming language in Windows. After assuming for the sake of the analogy that Kerrigan was the better skater, Motz said: "Nancy Kerrigan is deprived of the opportunity to compete on those two good knees." Motz also compared Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct to a baseball game between the Orioles and Yankees, in which one team uses a camera in center field to steal signals from the opponent. The judge said there was a "social value" in being able to participate fairly in a market undistorted by one's competitor. "Capitalism is about making money, but it's also about something else. It's also about pride of product," Motz said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 187 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:36:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/7/2002 11:53:28 PM |
|
For the love of man, is it sooooooo difficult to understand what jerk is saying?
Here's a senario: Microsoft and OEM have a license deal. OEM ships Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office exclusively. OEM gets good license price. OEM worries that Microsoft will charge much higher license fees, if they offer their customers a competing product. Anti trust settlement prevents Microsoft from retaliating if OEM ships competing product. Quoting the settlement from jerk's post: 1. Anti-Retaliation and Uniform Licenses Section III.A bars Microsoft from “retaliat[ion]” against OEMs by altering its commercial relationship with that OEM or “withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration . . . from that OEM” in certain circumstances. Id. § III.A. In particular, the provision bars retaliation where Microsoft knows the OEM “is or is contemplating”: 1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware; 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or 3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment. |
| #27 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/7/2002 11:54:31 PM |
| I guess i should mention that the part that pertains to shipping a competing product and the prohibition of retaliation from Microsoft is in bold. |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/8/2002 1:21:09 AM |
|
Thanks, Bob -- it's bizare how we keep supporting each other lately, ain't it? Or I should say that you've supported me--thanks, I appreciate it.
If there was any confusion, I was insulting whatsitzname because he was trolling. I stopped responding because he was trolling. I stopped responding because what I had to say was perfectly obvious, understandable, and truthful. No one was willing to admit these fact--some of you actually claim whatitzname got the better of me?--except for Bob. Cheers to Bob! Now try doing something with your wekend all, it still ain't over. |
| #29 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/8/2002 4:19:08 AM |
|
#52: If Sun were interested in competition, they would've done many things differently. Sun wants to do it's own thing without having to be bothered with competing. And when it has to compete, it feels its rights have been violated, so it sues.
What a nice life that must be. |
| #30 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/8/2002 1:08:37 PM |
|
#42- "If Microsoft is forced to include java in Windows it will now be competing evenly with Apple's Mac OS X."
Sigh... Ok, you reason that the only difference between MacOS X and Windows is the version of Java they run, and when they are made equal, people will all switch to MacOS X?!? Wow... Aside from the complete idiocy of that comment.. What about the fact that the Java in Windows is actually a VERY old version (mandated by Sun!), and can't run many of the new applications out there... thereby forcing users to download a newer copy anyway? What about the fact that Microsoft's JVM only runs a certain subset of applications faster, while most applications run at about the same speed as Sun's JVM? What about the fact that the last time I used a Java application on my machine was... um... I can't even remember. NOBODY USES JAVA FOR CLIENT SIDE APPS ANYMORE. (They barely did to begin with.) Java lives on via J2EE, J2ME, etc... oh, and the occasional chat plugin. I realize you're probably just trying to be a troll, but try and at least come up with posts that have SOME merit to them so they can start some kind of debate... instead of this mindless drivel. |
| #31 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/8/2002 6:17:22 PM |
| sodajerk, just ignore post #41... you'll only look worse if you respond now. |
| #32 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/8/2002 7:14:00 PM |
|
moore, are you so blinded by your annoyance at sodajerk, that you stopped thinking rationally? At least as far as this thread is concerned, anyone who is thinking reasonably won't have any trouble following jerk's position. It is very reasonable and logical. Anyone following your posts would likely think you are a troll. They wouldn't be correct, would they?
Just perhaps, OEMs were fearfull of retaliation from Microsoft if they didn't include Microsoft Office with their packages or if they included a competitor to Office. The settlement agreement formally outlaws any such retaliation. Over the past year (since the DOJ and 9 states reached the agreement with Microsoft) OEMs have begun to include WordPerfect with their packages. Do you suppose it is because Corel has finally produced a respectable office suite? or, just perhaps, it could be related to the anti retaliation clause of the settlement? FYI, my answering of post #41 doesn't make me or jerk look bad. Actually, it makes the author of the post (and of your post in #54) look extremely foolish. My interpretation was not at all difficult to arrive at. Considering the ease with which I understood jerk's posts, what does that say about you? |
| #33 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/8/2002 10:54:55 PM |
| blah blah blah. Call the guy with the question the fool. Is that now your typical response? At least you answered though. Better than jerky... but not by much. |
| #34 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/9/2002 12:46:20 AM |
| moore, if you were asking because you really were trying to but really didn't understand, then I apologize for talking harshly about you. If, on the other hand, you were asking in order to mock jerk, then I stand by my previous statements. |
| #35 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/9/2002 11:09:24 PM |
| BobSmith, stop worrying about my INTENT, and focus on what I type. And I again say... he didn't answer. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 187 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:36:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
