| 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 |
 |
Sun Micro May Sue Microsoft, Slams Settlement | |
|
||
| Time: 17:02 EST/22:02 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
Sun Microsystems Inc. said on Friday it might sue rival Microsoft Corp, since it believed an anti-trust settlement between the federal government and the software maker would not protect competitors. Sun's top lawyer, General Counsel Mike Morris, told Reuters Microsoft would still be able to hurt competitors under a deal struck with the U.S. Department of Justice. "It is not even weak. It is totally ineffectual," Morris said of the settlement. "There are all sorts of outs and loopholes and vagaries and lack of definitions here." The deal, which must be endorsed by a federal judge, intends to curb Microsoft's powers by setting restrictions on how it treats competitors, and it avoids the breakup a court once recommended. Microsoft has stopped short of admitting it broke the law but said on Friday the deal gave it new responsibilities. Morris said Sun would now consider a civil suit against Microsoft. "I can't tell you what we will do, but I can assure you that we will now move to active consideration and decision about what to do," he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:14:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/3/2001 5:58:51 PM |
|
Typical Sun. Can you imagine what kind of great software MS could be writing if it wasn't for Sun et all??? I know employees there must get distracted by all of this stuff. How long has this been a distraction? 4-5 years now?
Sheesh give it a rest all ready... |
| #2 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 7:00:31 PM |
|
duplicate post This post was edited by BobSmith on Saturday, November 03, 2001 at 19:01. |
| #3 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 7:00:43 PM |
|
We have been playing politics since 1998. Here's a question, of consumer operating systems, business desktop operating systems, office productivity suites, web browsers, Internet access software, multimedia players, and instant messaging software where do Sun and Microsoft compete? The only viable candidate that I see is StarOffice vs Microsoft Office. Since Sun bought StarOffice after the anti-trust suit began (and since they give it away for free), why does Sun feel slighted by Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft doesn't have monopoly control over the areas where Sun has services or products.
The only reason that I see for Sun being so upset is that they fear Microsoft will enter the enterprise market space where Sun has had quite a healthy monopoly for years. The anti-trust suit is about the desktop operating system, but Sun is worried about the enterprise server market. In other words, Sun is using the anti-trust suit which has little bearing on them, to fight against Microsoft in the server market which has nothing at all to do with the anti-trust case. Sun doesn't have a case, since they don't compete in the areas where Microsoft has supposedly harmed the market. |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/3/2001 8:22:57 PM |
|
#5, "Don't even try to argure that point because it has already been judged by those who know more about the law than you or I."
Ahh... so politics and personal bias never invade on court judgments? Give me a break... anybody could rattle off countless examples of courts ruling incorrectly under their bias interpretations of the law, from a lowly town court all the way to the Supreme Court. Saying nobody can argue against their ruling is an incredibly ignorant and dangerous thing to say. Have you read the court transcripts from the Penfield court? If you don't see biases come through loud and clear, you must be blind. I've read the entire transcript (took me over a week), and unless you have, I suggest you educate yourself before asserting your views. Is Microsoft a monopoly? Yes. Is being a monopoly illegal? No. Did they do things that were anti-competitive, and therefore hurt consumers? Yes. Were they even CLOSE to warranting a breakup? Of course not. Only ms-bigots would think so, as the appellate court explained in their ruling. While I'm sure competitors were hoping for Bill Gates' head on a steak, these remedies will protect consumers quite a bit. They will prevent all of the bad things Microsoft has been shown to have done - forcing exclusive OEM contracts, forcing certain configurations of Windows, etc. This will put Microsoft in a position where they are forced to compete like everybody else, which hasn't been the case for many years. Despite what companies like Sun and Netscape/AOL (who were the original plaintiffs in the case, not consumers... that should have been a clue right there) say, anti-trust laws are there to protect CONSUMERS NOT COMPETITORS. Of course the ruling doesn't prevent Microsoft from hurting Sun... THAT'S THE DAMN POINT OF CAPITALISM. Sheesh. On a side note, I'm sure much of the current settlement is because of politics. Republicans want less regulation (when it suits them), in addition to the current economic circumstances, and so this deal was to be expected. I always say, Republicans do the right things for the wrong reasons, and Democrats do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Take that as you will. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, November 03, 2001 at 20:25. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/3/2001 8:51:18 PM |
|
Here, I can't say this any better...
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0111/microsoft_settlement.shtml If Sun starts launching silly lawsuits, prepare for their Chapter 11 filing. History has shown that in the computer industry wasting your corporate resources in such a way dooms you. Look at Hayes, Lotus, Apple, etc. |
| #6 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/3/2001 9:10:40 PM |
| Thats pretty good soda. It got a chuckle out of me anyways. |
| #7 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 9:30:42 PM |
|
That's a rather rational and logic perspective RMD. It's refreshing that someone sees the point of capitalism.
In the words of Rush fans (though I'm not a fan), megadittos soda. Great article. |
| #8 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 10:07:06 PM |
|
#14 I'd go for A1.
Michael, as I see it, Microsoft's operating system monopoly doesn't hurt Java. If anything, it makes it easier for Sun because they don't have to write as many Java Virtual Machines. Sun entered the picture with Java when Microsoft had a monopoly, so I don't really see Java as a valid concern. If we want to dig into the licensing of Java law suit, well, that is a whole different matter altogether. If anything, Java is one defense that Microsoft doesn't have as firm a hold on the industry as it appears. |
| #9 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/4/2001 3:28:08 AM |
|
#13, I am scared and saddened to be compared, or in anyway even associated, with Rush Limbaugh.
I must now gut myself with a spoon. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, November 04, 2001 at 03:31. |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/4/2001 4:54:12 AM |
|
#24, I'm reasonably happy with the settlement. I'm not exactly sure what the point of opening up IE is... but I'm sure they have their reasons.
Other than that, I think it was approximately what Microsoft deserved. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/4/2001 10:33:59 AM |
|
#27. Agreed RMD. Considering the ineptitude of the actual case against Microsoft and the crime they were supposedly guilty of... the punishment fits.
Sun is taking the tact of shooting themselves in the foot. They're losing business left and right to Linux, but they don't work to address Linux as a competitor. Instead they embrace Linux and attack Microsoft. Why? Not quite certain, I think it's an irrational hatred problem. Anybody noticed we haven't heard from Ellison lately? Where is his yearly "WE WILL BURY SAP, SEIBEL, MICROSOFT AND ALL OF OUR COMPETITORS!" announcement? :) |
| #12 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/4/2001 2:59:05 PM |
|
#32, there is a MAJOR difference between protecting "competition" and protecting "the competition."
What Sun, Oracle, and all the rest want is the later. Anti-trust laws are here to protect consumers, and yes, part of that is ensuring an even playing field for competition. But it in NO WAY is to protect individual companies from competition with other companies. That's what they want. The point I was making is that it wasn't consumers, or consumer groups, or anybody to do with consumers, that brought the case against Microsoft. It was competitors. If consumers were getting hurt, they would have spoken up *before* the case was filed. It was only AFTER the case was in the lime light for a year+ that these so called consumer groups (of which many actually consisted of competitor plants and fake grass roots start-ups) started speaking up against the "evil empire." Surprise, surprise. Basically, the entire case against Microsoft was fought under the premise that while Microsoft hasn't actually hurt consumers, they *could* in the future, and should therefore be punished for their potential actions. Don't agree? Well, they say it on countless occasions (the PROSECUTION says it) in the transcripts. READ THEM SOMETIME. |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/4/2001 6:48:51 PM |
|
#34, actually... as a Libertarian, I would complain about the lack of competition for any number of public services, like the mail, for instance.
The only utility that makes money, and is publicly held, is the TVA. (Tennessee Valley Authority.) One reason it makes money is they run it like a competitive business, and there is indeed some competition... although not a whole lot. Many would say that the example of the failure of the utilities in California is an example of why deregulation is bad. On the surface, this seems accurate. They deregulated, and everything went to hell. Close examination, however, shows that they were only partially deregulated, which ended up being *worse* than complete regulation. There were severe price caps set on the cost of energy produced, which prevented (along with insane Californian power plant regulations) the utilities from building more plants to meet demand. Since they couldn't increase production, and they couldn't increase the price, they got screwed. This happens a lot. The same is true for the airlines. They were "deregulated" and everything went to hell - not because of the deregulation, but because they were only *partially* deregulated. I'm not sure I understand your argument in the AMD/Intel battle. AMD and Intel are dropping prices every other day. I can get a 1.6Ghz Athlon for about $130 bucks, or P4 2Ghz for $400... I remember when Intel had no competition and those same "cutting edge" chips debuted for well over $1000. These dropping prices for those companies to innovate and figure out better ways of producing the same product for less cost, which is always a good thing for consumers. While layoffs might result from cost cutting internally, the general public (aka, the vast majority of consumers) benefit a huge amount from this competition. If the people were laid off, chances are they were bloat anyway, which were simply costing consumers (in the end) money. I know that sounds cold, but economics is a cold science. (Well... pseudo-science. :-) On a side not, I'm not *really* a Libertarian. I am certainly a civil Libertarian, but there are some places where Libertarian ideologies fall apart. The environment is a good example. |
| #14 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/5/2001 1:42:20 AM |
| I think what he was getting at was that corporations in this price war are having to lay people off. Thats not a good thing. |
| #15 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 11/5/2001 1:36:43 PM |
| I never said differently. |
| #16 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/5/2001 5:58:26 PM |
| #38 - Competition can equal layoffs... if a company is trying to be lean and mean, they often start by cutting superfluous jobs. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:14:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
