| 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 denies appeal in Microsoft ruling | |
|
||
| Time: 15:30 EST/20:30 GMT | News Source: CNN | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
A federal judge has denied a request by computer and software makers to appeal an antitrust settlement among Microsoft Corp., the Bush administration and several states. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said two trade associations had failed to justify their appeal, but could pursue their own antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft. In her Saturday ruling, she cited the recent case in Baltimore brought by Sun Microsystems. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:59:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/13/2003 5:13:35 PM |
| Isquez, perhaps you don't understand what a SETTLEMENT is. It is an AGREEMENT between BOTH parties. Therefore justice, as defined by the very people complaining (not YOU) was indeed DONE. |
| #2 By 1913 (68.0.60.189) at 1/13/2003 7:43:12 PM |
|
#2 & #5 Sorry to break your bubbles, but the federal judge that was overseeing the trial approved the settlement between the two parties ...hence JUSTICE was served. This post was edited by rommels on Monday, January 13, 2003 at 19:43. |
| #3 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/13/2003 9:53:44 PM |
|
#2 and #5, stubear is right... you need to take a cold-hard look at yourselves and realize why you feel like you do. Justice was ABSOLUTELY served.
justice - "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or LAW." And the last I checked, the Judge is the only person able to DECIDE what is just. To repeat, the JUDGE, not YOU, not ME... the JUDGE. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 1/13/2003 10:39:14 PM |
|
#10 This is completely and utterly off topic but work with me here for a second since I want to challange your whole theory on whatever the "JUDGE" decides equates to justice being served.
Let's say that PersonA goes out, kidnaps, rapes and kills 3 kids. PersonA is found, caught and taken to trial. For whatever reason (let's say PersonA is very 'influential' and has a lot of money to 'influence' the right sorts of people) he gets off with a minimum sentence. Has justice been served? According to you it has. Most would disagree with you here. Now let's say those were your 3 kids... Has justice been served now? Now obviously that is an extreme scenario but it was just to paint you a picture that nothing in law is black and white. Just because the JUDGE decides something doesn't mean justice was served... in fact the JUDGE may have made a mistake... whole panel of juries have been known to make mistakes and look away or sentence completely innocent people to death. I'm not saying that in this case justice was or was not served.... but the JUDGE's decision doesn't automatically mean that justice was served. |
| #5 By 1913 (68.0.60.189) at 1/13/2003 11:13:03 PM |
|
Chris ...your analogy is totally ludicrous. You cannot compare a serial killer / rapist to another type of trial. Hear me here ...that is why we have different type of trials out there. Am I correct?
Let's put it this way ...let say you are Person A, and all of the evidence are pointing at you, do you think all the money in the world can save you? You're a kidnapper, serial killer, and rapist ...does that make you a monopolist. I think not. There could be a mis-trail or tampering with the evidence, and you may get out off it because of that. The trail was thrown out off court, and that is the only time you can say that justice was not served. Of course you will be smiling all the way to bank, and heading to the closes border before the DA puts a warrant on you. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/14/2003 12:14:11 AM |
| chris_kabuki - Civil law is not comparable with criminal law. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/14/2003 9:06:20 AM |
|
Isquez, you're a fool. An increase from 30 to 200 is 6 2/3x. That isn't a 10k% increase, FYI.
Contradictorily you defame Windows, while then saying that it has a large app base and support base. It seems that you don't understand the argument you are making. In other words you are arguing from emotion, not fact or logic. Finally, you haven't addressed a simple topic - intrinsic value. What is the intrinsic value of an operating system. Apple just released a point release/service pack to their latest OS and they charge $129 for it. It seems to me that Windows' cost is inline with current industry pricing. A piece of software as feature laden as Windows (that wasn't an operating system) would likely be sold for a significanly higher price. Check out PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, an Oracle database and tell me if software is expensive. Software is expensive, it's a fact. Saying that $200 is too great a cost when the market will bare the pricing of other expensive software products is just foolish. Since this is logical, and you are arguing from emotion, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 10:59:38 AM |
|
lsquez - "Back in ’91 MSDOS was $30"
No it wasn't it was $50 for an upgrade. Windows 3.0 sold for another $99. "Now 95% plus of the market and our OS is $200" No, it's $99, but you get the Windows functionality as well. "I've supported PC's and servers since the early 90's and I can tell you it's a whole lot harder now than it was then to make everything work well over a long period of time. " What work well? I'd much rather have a modern computer today with XP than the pieces of crap people were selling back in the early 90's with DOS and Windows. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/14/2003 12:22:52 PM |
|
"BobSmith, calling people names shows your own ignorance. Let's just agree to disagree."
No, it doesn't show my ignorance. It shows my anger, and perhaps my maturity. If your argument is foolish and you support it, you are, by definition, a fool. It's much like if you live in the United States and I call you an American. Calling you a jerk or any number of obscenities would be name calling. That I did not do. I simply called you what you are. In light of blue's revelations on price, I might also call you a liar, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just mistaken. "I've supported PC's and servers since the early 90's and I can tell you it's a whole lot harder now than it was then to make everything work well over a long period of time." Kudos to you. I don't see what this has to do with anything. When you introduce more features to a given system, you introduce the overall configuration matrix is expanded. Each new dimension (e.g. each new feature, application, etc) exponentially expands the matrix. If the new complexity isn't worth it, why don't you sell your employers on the technology of 10 years ago. If the company needs the new functionality, than they deem it worth the added complexity. At any rate, I still don't see the point of your statement. And, I still think you sound rather foolish. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/14/2003 12:23:35 PM |
| stu, I thought it was Photoshop, but didn't feel like looking it up. Sorry, I'll do better next time. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 2:09:37 PM |
|
Isquez - I know people who buy new televisions every year because of improvements.
Have you seen the new TI-DLP technology? http://www.samsungelectronics.com/tv/tech_info/glossary/glossary_h.html#HDTV%20with%20DLPTM%20technology It works a lot better than the old CRT guns. If you don't want to keep up with the new technology, you don't have to. My parents still periodically use their 1988 Leading Edge Model D. Their fastest computer is a Celeron 333A I bought back like 4 years ago and gave to them 2 years ago, and they're fine with that. But if you don't keep up with the technology, you can't be in the technology industry. That's what Amiga found out. They had a lead in 1986, but they let it stagnate for years. By 1992 the rest of the industry had surpassed them in speed, features and price. For some strange reason you consider that a virtue, but it's a death-knell in the industry, just like if Samsung hadn't introduced the new TI-DLP displays or much less was still producing pre-HDTV technology. Nobody buys a big screen television these days that is not HDTV. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 1/14/2003 5:52:47 PM |
|
#12, #13, #16
Obviously I didn't make it clear enough that I was completely going OFF TOPIC! No I am not comparing criminal law to civil law or a rapist to a monopolist..... my whole point was to illustrate that just because JUDGE A comes out with DECISION A that doesn't mean that JUDGES B, C and D wouldn't have come out with a completely different decision and it definetely doesn't automatically mean that justice was served. Is that a little more clear? I used the example I used because it's one that people can feel passionate about (in terms of the feelings for wether or not justice was served). It wasn't to compare to Microsoft nor their actions. So just to summarize.... A judge's final decision does not automatically mean that justice was served. #16 "We don't need analogies here" You speak for everyone do you? Sorry but there's no other way to take that comment from you. If you do not like the (and I quote myself) "extreme scenario [that] was just to paint you a picture" which you decided to call an analogy, don't read it. "Microsoft's competitors have been behind this anti-trust suit from day one." No-one is saying they haven't been. "Justice was indeed served IN THIS CASE" That is your opinion. Someone else may disagree, but just because the judge ruled the way he did does not make your opinion right and others wrong. "You, and others, including Microsoft's competitors, don't want balance" Now you suddenly know me and what I want. Firstly you speak on behalf of everyone here and now you may as well speak on behalf of me given that you know what I want. Give me a break. I never put my opinion forward on this, I was simply challanging one of the comments made here that whatever the judge rules equates to justice being served. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:59:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
