| 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 |
 |
Microsoft: Sanctions could confuse users | |
|
||
| Time: 09:40 EST/14:40 GMT | News Source: USA Today | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft could still use its Windows monopoly to promote its software over rivals' under a proposed settlement of the company's antitrust case, a government prosecutor suggested in court Thursday. Microsoft's Chris Jones, overseer of the Windows operating system, had testified that restrictions his firm could continue to place on PC makers under the settlement are aimed at making computers ''simple and easy.'' Tougher sanctions sought by nine states in the current trial would confuse consumers, he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 338 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:13:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/26/2002 8:50:10 PM |
| Sodajerk Gates repeated what the the Court of Appeal stated, this does not mean that he agrees with them. It is different, you can be found guilty by a judge and still keep professing that you are innocent, this is your right but if you are filling some forms and you are request to specify if you have ever been convicted you have to say yes. There is a substantial difference between report something and agree with it. |
| #27 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 8:54:21 PM |
| As I said, Fritzly, Gates' runs a company and knows he has to comply with the law... If you would like to believe that deep down in his heart, Gates believes otherwise and that somehow this will secretly allow him to avoid facing the ramifications of it in court... whatever. On the other hand, the fact that MS is more or less denying everything, exagerating everything, claiming ignorance of the most basic concepts and logic, it is a HUGE admission. After all, I still routinely come across foolish people here who claim that it was not found illegal to commingle code. |
| #28 By 3339 (67.116.252.40) at 4/27/2002 3:30:56 AM |
|
CPU and Fritz, maybe you'd like to look at it this way...
Gates conceded something which is a fact, yes... you say it's no big deal that he will admit that the Appeals Court upheld the ruling that commingling the code of IE with OS code was an anticompetive and illegal act which contributed to a SAA Article 2 claim of using monpoly power to protect, extend, and/or increase that power. Some people refuse to admit this... (Hmmph) Not only did Gates concede this, he also conceded that there was nothing in the DOJ settlement to account for or remedy this act, this power. (Hmmm) Here's the interesting part: Gates has insisted that the DOJ not only adequately provides for all of the acts they were found guilty of committing, but that the settlement goes WAY BEYOND what a COURT would GRANT as an appropriate remedy! He probably even says this in his sworn written testimony (that's the part I haven't read yet--maybe not, actually, he wanted to avoid the comparison...). So what we got in court was... KUNEY: Mr Gates, would you be willing to agree that the Appeals Court ruled that commingling system code with IE was an anticompetitive and illegal act? GATES: Yes. KUNEY: Mr. Gates, would you say that there are any provisions in the current DOJ settlement to account for this? GATES: Errr... No. (MY IMAGINATION) KUNEY: So, Mr. Gates, would you say that you were lying when you said: "This remedy adequately remedies all acts found to be illegal, this was a major win for MS, the case was significantly narrowed, blah, blah, we actually gave the DOJ more than ANY COURT would ever be able to GRANT to US"? Do you remember saying that, Mr. Gates? GATES: (the sound of crickets) chrpp-chrpp KUNEY: If you just acknowledged that all of the acts which your company committed are not accounted for by the settlement, how could you possibly have granted MORE than is necessary to remedy the situation that your company is exploiting? GATES: ummm, err, it depends on what kind of math you use, sometimes less is more, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's both... MSLAWYER: I object! He's badgering the witness, your Honor, just like that jack@ass sodajerk would do... ...And that's what you call impeaching a witness. Of course, the Courts and the lawyers are too afraid, they ultimately say that the evidence was ambiguous... |
| #29 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/27/2002 2:59:21 PM |
| SodaJerk, Did you ever find a direct link to the NSPR? I'm still at a loss trying to find it. |
| #30 By 3339 (64.175.43.206) at 4/27/2002 7:22:39 PM |
|
Jagged, actually this point is the crux of most of my intentions at this site: this act is the most serious, the least precedented in law, the most damaging, and the least understood. I didn't ask for soda to get involved in it so I don't mind still lobbing a few jokes his way. If you think code commingling is no longer valid, I guess you don't see computer technology as very pervasive and ifluential in our present moment in history. Oh well, for you...
Hump, sorry, I didn't put much effort into checking, but I haven't founf it right off--I'll send it your way if and when I do. (Isn't it almost scary how the DOJ and MS refuse to acknowledge some of the states' materials which they obviously have and could post on their sites?) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 338 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:13:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
