| 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 and Minnesota Plaintiffs Settle Minnesota Class-Action Lawsuit | |
|
||
| Time: 15:06 EST/20:06 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Zelle, Hoffman, Voelbel & Gette and Kirby, McInerney & Squire, counsel for the Minnesota Settlement Class, and Microsoft Corp. jointly announced today that a settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit alleging that Microsoft violated Minnesota’s antitrust laws. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve all claims in this litigation. The settlement will be presented to the court for preliminary approval in early summer of 2004. The terms of the settlement are in the process of being finalized and will be made public at that time. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/19/2004 5:11:51 PM |
|
WOO HOO!
Where's my money!? Gimme my money! I want my money! |
| #2 By 11888 (64.230.76.184) at 4/19/2004 7:12:00 PM |
|
It's been a couple of hours and Parkker hasn't posted yet.
Whatever he ends up saying, I'll bet it's long and contains links to unrelated items. I'll kick it off. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20040418/va_mi/anchor_away__brokaw_locks_dec__farewell_1 |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/19/2004 9:02:32 PM |
|
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040419/tech_linux_legal_1.html
"After a rigorous six-month process of examining the individual software files in the Linux kernel and tracing their origins, OSRM found no copyright infringement in kernel versions 2.4 and 2.6," What a bunch of liars! Parkker himself told us that no code reviews of Linux are performed, he said that it was a myth! I bet they're just members of the Russian and Chinese foreign agencies and terrorist groups planting more backdoors in Linux knowing full well that all those American agencies are far too lazy and stupid to actually check the code they are running! We can't let them get away with this! |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/19/2004 9:56:23 PM |
| #6 Tell me it isn't so! You're not actually agreeing with those liars are you? What happened to the myth of code reviews of Linux? I guess the only myth left is the one about Microsoft disclosing the details of all the bugs they fix! |
| #5 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/19/2004 10:43:41 PM |
|
#8 "You mean the core people from Groklaw are liars?"
They must be!!! I don't know what else to think of them! After all, we've all been told over and over and over again by you that code reviews of Linux are a myth! Given that you and Groklaw are saying the opposite thing, one of you must be lying! Surely you would never lie to us! "What code review? They claimed to have checked the 6 million lines of code in the Linux kernel for copyright infringement." Don't you think they would have had to review the code to check for copyright infringement? I didn't say they did a security code review, or a code review for buffer overflows. "How did they manage to get the source code from every proprietary OS and the source code for every copyrighted application running today to compare to the Linux kernel." See with Linux, all the changes/bug fixes etc are listed and disclosed (unlike Microsoft). So I'm guessing that they went through the tree of changes. If you want a more indepth answer, email them, after all they did it not me! Pamela Jones - PJ@groklaw.com "But I love the idea of charging every company that uses Linux $100,000 just to buy into their con game. Plus 30,000 a year for $1,000,000 woth of insurance a year." Why shouldn't they be allowed to make money? They are providing a service - legal advice, so why wouldn't they be allowed to charge for it? You don't have to pay them a cent if you don't want to, but if you want to use their services, it's time to pay up. I never imagined you of all people to be against someone making money! |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/19/2004 11:05:16 PM |
|
"They didn't certify Linux was free from lawsuits based on patents."
Not as far as their press release says no. Can ANYONE protect you from lawsuits based on patents? Can Microsoft protect you against patent lawsuits? or have they covered themselves in the EULA? "And chris ... where did they get the proprietary software and operating systems to compare with Linux?" a) Who says they need that sort of information? Are there not other ways of confirming where code came from other than comparing it to every single piece of code ever written? b) I've already told you, email Pamela Jones (PJ@groklaw.com), I'm sure she will be more than helpful with your request. "Nice con." I never said it wasn't =) In fact, given that they have a $250/year option for developers, it would seem that if you are going to be a developer for at least 3 years it's cheaper to just buy the $699 "insurance" from SCO. Mind you, the "insurance" from SCO only protects you from SCO themselves, whereas this will aid you with any company that wants to sue you. Having said all that, I'll reiterate, there's nothing wrong with them trying to make money off a service they are providing - only time will tell whether or not they are successful in getting many corporate clients on board. My only reference to this story, and you would have noticed it if you were paying attention and reading what I actually wrote, is that OSRM claim to have completed a thorough code review (for copyright infringement). You on the other hand have always stated that no code reviews of Linux occur, that it's a myth. Obviously one of you is lying! |
| #7 By 11888 (64.230.76.184) at 4/19/2004 11:11:30 PM |
| Parkker is sort of like the Rush Limbaugh of activewin.com. |
| #8 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/19/2004 11:45:02 PM |
|
#14 "Otherwise, I stand firm that no such code review has occurred."
There we go, given that you say no code review occured, and the fact that you know everything, it must mean that OSRM are lying! Like I said from the start, one of you is lying! "Go ahead and convince me." I've told you on several occassions to email the source, Pamela Jones, you're either blind, lazy or unable to read. You're obviously capable of typing, so start typing away an email to Pamela, start it off with the facts that you know that no code review occured, then ask her to give you the details of how the code review took place. Cut and paste a copy of your email here (including all headers so we can verify it) and then do the same when she replies back. |
| #9 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 4/19/2004 11:48:51 PM |
|
Very insightful MrRoper.
You know that feeling you have right now, as you read my worthless comment above? Thats the same feeling everyone else got on each of YOUR comments. |
| #10 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/20/2004 12:04:35 AM |
| Parkker, if you like, you can even email John St. Clair, Executive Director of OSRM (info@osriskmanagement.com). Or just CC either John or Pamela on the same email. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 4/20/2004 12:52:48 AM |
|
I still don't see my money!
Gimme my money! I got $10 from the RIAA lawsuit and $1.25 from the Citibank lawsuit. I'm just swimming in class action lawsuit claims! I figure MS owes me at least $4.95! |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/20/2004 3:56:14 AM |
| #19 So we've established that you cannot read and/or comprehend, at least we've made some progress in this thread. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
