The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  


  Supreme Court Denies Microsoft Appeal
Time: 13:27 EST/18:27 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Julien Jay

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Microsoft's request that it hear an appeal of the antitrust case against the software maker. The Redmond, Wash.-based company had appealed not on the merits of the case but because of comments that U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had made to the media. "We're disappointed that our petition is not one of the few the Supreme Court chose to review this term," said Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma. "We will continue to move forward with the case at the District (Court) level and comply with the court's order to work in good faith with the government to settle the case." Varma said that the company hopes the process will lead to a quick resolution of the remaining issues "in the interest of consumers, so we can do our part to keep the economy moving forward."

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 163
Last | Next
  The time now is 3:30:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 1124 ( at 10/9/2001 3:48:14 PM
Microsoft will win this case just like IBM did. The key is not to lose the competitive fire and fall behind like IBM did during the fight. I think they(MS) are doing a very good job especially this year.

This post was edited by GhostRider on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at 13:19.

#2 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 8:50:44 AM
#5 a win is a win no matter how it happens. If your opponent forfiets a contest then you still win(I never said won in court). The DOJ has already dropped parts of the case against Microsoft. Bush will not persue this for long. So MS might win the same way IBM did, because this case will go on for a long time.

#6, try and make a real point. This is not an english class( Lots of people have typos). Get a life.

#3 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 8:51:00 AM

This post was edited by GhostRider on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at 08:51.

#4 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 1:18:36 PM
The Supreme Court will surely play a role in this case(unless their is a settlement between the two parties). MS will appeal her remedy/decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to take the case because their was not a final decision in the lower courts. This case is way too important to ignore. If Microsoft plays their cards right this thing could take about 10+ years. Fast track mean nothing when you have good lawyers.

This post was edited by GhostRider on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at 13:19.

#5 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 4:05:18 PM
I think this is a witch hunt. Microsoft like all companies sometimes go a little too far. But that is what happens when you compete.

Microsoft's OEMs contracts were, I think, not fair. They should have one price for all their customers. Especially when Microsoft is so important in the PC world. I am also willing to admit they did other things that were wrong( nothing major). Charge them for that
and move on. (By the way, MS has fixed a lot of these problems )

Instead of doing this, the DOJ is attacking MS and talking about breaking up the company as if they are destroying the environment and killing people( Like some companies that I will not name ). Thus the "Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid strategy" is fine by me until the DOJ comes back to reality and stop listening to only MS competitors and states Attorney who want to be senators

#6 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 4:21:27 PM
#14. First, the Supreme Court judges are there for life. That is why they could make such a bad decision(Bush) and get away with it. I think this case will be heard by them. It is way too important.

I want MS to do everything available to them under the law to defend themself. Using you (very bad)logic, MS should have said "OK" to judge Jackson and become 2 or 3 companies. Dude, that is not how the laws work in this country. We all have a right to fight in the courts as long as the courts allows us. No reason for you to be "ashamed". :)

#7 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 5:59:27 PM
-- #16 I will answer inline. Please ignore my grammer errors. I am rushing.

Do you think MS should be able to say their license are intellectual property and cannot be reviewed by the government?

--No. They offered to chaned and has changed it. Read my not above.

Do you think that MS should be able to have exclusive agreements with OEMS to place their software and not others?

-- MS gave OEMs the right to have exclusive deals with who ever they want.

Do you think that MS should be allowed to force manufacturers buying licenses to advertise for MS?Do you think MS should be allowed to prevent OEMs from selling naked boxes?

-- Not so anymore

Do you think MS should be allowed to prevent manufactuers from creating dual boot systems?

--No, I think this is fixed.

Do you think that MS should be allowed to force Passport sign-up for everything under the sun even if there is nothing which technologically explicitly requires it?

--Yes. You don't have to use MS stuff. Your hyperble about "everything under the sun" is just that.

Do you think that MS should be allowed to pervert Java so that it doesn't work on other systems, then remove Java support altogether from their systems?

-- As a programmer, Java is just a language. If I wanted to use it on windows I would run
Sun's VM. If some company refuse to treat it as a language and refuse to open it(after promising to do so) and also take me to court( runon allert), I would not want that stuff in my OS. But MS did not do that, they made it a free download. Again you are using hyperble.

Do you think that MS should be the only company allowed to control the desktop (accepted by the District Court as an advertising platform and distribution channel) even though they don't provide support for 90% of the systems sold or the software on those systems?

--This is not true. OEM's have the ability to put anything they want on the desktop. They just
can't delete all the MS stuff. As a consumer, I want the MS stuff just in case the OEM's put garbage on the desktop. Personally I wanted nothing on the desktop, but I understand the MS compromise.

Do you think that MS should be able to strong arm companies like Apple by eliminating a software line (which has always proven to be a consistent and substantial profit for MS)?

--Hearsay and more hyperble.

I've got a million more but I'll stop there.... for now.

-- I must compliment you for actually trying to bring up issues. Too bad only 2 were real points the rest were hyperble and hearsay. What no Netscape questions? (LOL) What else do you have ? Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#8 By 1124 ( at 10/10/2001 9:46:39 PM
Sorry I forgot to log in above :)

#9 By 1124 ( at 10/11/2001 8:41:43 AM

1. The appeals court did not rule on the finally remedy as yet.

2. Taking away all of MS cash reserves because they had some bad contracts(allready fixed) is
way over board. This kind of hype is what I expect from a pure MS hater. ( By the way,
what about all the hard work the company did to get to where they are today. Do we
discount that and say something stupid like "Take away MS's cash reserves that they
accumulated as a result of those agreements, that would even the playing field quickly".
I think to you, "even the playing field" means destroy MS. Makes no sense.)

3. Equating the death of a corporation to an actual murder is just stupid(another hype).

4. Hating someone because they are the best in the world is not smart. Look at what is
happening in our world today.

5. MS will win in the end.

#10 By 116 ( at 10/17/2001 6:28:01 PM
Go GhostRider!

#11 By 4240821 ( at 10/25/2023 6:19:59 PM

#12 By 4240821 ( at 10/29/2023 4:08:11 PM

#13 By 4240821 ( at 10/29/2023 6:11:10 PM

#14 By 4240821 ( at 10/31/2023 2:57:19 AM

#15 By 4240821 ( at 10/31/2023 5:47:45 PM

#16 By 4240821 ( at 11/1/2023 11:54:15 AM

#17 By 4240821 ( at 11/2/2023 5:50:47 AM

#18 By 4240821 ( at 11/3/2023 4:29:46 AM

#19 By 4240821 ( at 11/4/2023 4:40:49 PM

#20 By 4240821 ( at 11/5/2023 4:04:43 PM

#21 By 4240821 ( at 11/8/2023 3:42:21 AM

#22 By 4240821 ( at 11/11/2023 4:22:12 AM

#23 By 4240821 ( at 11/11/2023 1:26:14 PM

#24 By 4240821 ( at 11/12/2023 10:21:30 PM

#25 By 4240821 ( at 11/13/2023 7:13:45 AM

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 163
Last | Next
  The time now is 3:30:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:


  *   *