| 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 |
 |
E-Mail the Justice Department - Tell them to support the Microsoft Settlement | |
|
||
| Time: 17:41 EST/22:41 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:41:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 1/13/2002 7:54:05 PM |
|
#8, for anyone who has half a brain, and doesn't have it shoved up their ass, MS does not charge too much for (most) of their products.
Second, MS has become what every business in a capitalisic society strives to become (every single one of them), MS has obtained the American dream, and now you want to punish them for it.... they are already getting amply punished MS gets in trouble for no matter what they do today. I bet that if MS went and just closed shop people like yourself would still whine because you wouldn't have anyone to pick on anymore..... that's just disgraceful if you ask me. Grow up. Btw, the names are Bill Gates and Steve Balmer, have respect for people for goodness sakes. Heck, Bill doesn't even run the company anymore, he's the spokesman, sure, but he doesn't call the shots for where the companies goes outside of the different products being worked on within the company. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/13/2002 10:30:22 PM |
|
#3 - It's nice that you agree the Anti-Trust trial is political rather than judicial.
#11 - Huh? #13 - One of the more bizarre arguments for the Microsoft anti-trust is that as a monopoly they have no reason to innovate. Yet strangely Microsoft has released much more software with far more innovative/new features in the past 5 years than they did during the entire 1980's when there was signifigant competition in the marketplace. I guess the point is, your argument would be stronger if you would stick to facts rather than speculating a reality that doesn't presently exist. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.240.94) at 1/13/2002 11:00:19 PM |
|
#15 Natural monopoly? They were competing with competitors and they one. With whom? Namely Apple and IBM (MacOS, OS/2). What does it mean to have a natural monopoly?
Why shouldn't Microsoft use its current products to promote other products. It's like CitiBank (a huge financial organization) lending you money for a mortgage. Once you have established yourself with them by paying on time, they offer insurance for your mortgage, then bi-weekly payment plans, then credit cards, then 2nd mortgages, then investment accounts, etc. They use the fact that you have one product with them (your first mortgage) to sell other products. This is no different from what Microsoft does. Just as with CitiBank today (we can choose to use the financial services from other financial institutions) we can choose to not use Microsoft products - the bundled ones, the non bundled ones, the books, the XBOX's and anything else they can dream up to sell us. We have the choice now, we always have. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.32.227) at 1/13/2002 11:46:38 PM |
|
Where are all the liberals who were crying foul over the small amount of money Starr spent on the Clinton investigation?
Oh that's right, Microsoft is a big, bad, meany corporation (who happens to provide 20,000+ jobs). |
| #5 By 1896 (208.61.156.208) at 1/14/2002 12:30:41 AM |
|
#17 the Sherman Act is eighty years old, the law was tailored to hit the Standard Oil which gained a monopoly on a natural source of energy and that "crusade" too was driven by opposite groups. This is history. Doesn't IBM have enough money to develop a new OS? Couldn't AOL-Time Warner do the same? Of course they can but they don't want to spend their money to do it, they want to get what MS develop for free. This is not about customers, it. The true issue here is about profit: they want to get the results without investing and this is wrong! Apple was the King of the market and they lost everything because their strategy was completely wrong and now they try to get it back using the results of other companies investments. This is what this tragedy is about. Why a tragedy? Because they are using our money to obtain it.
Regards Fritzly |
| #6 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 1/14/2002 8:29:11 AM |
|
What ever happened to equal time?
I'd prefer an address to write to that says NOT to support the week-knee'd settlement. TL |
| #7 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 1/14/2002 8:32:54 AM |
|
Great. Something else for MS to spike...
TL |
| #8 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 1/14/2002 10:10:44 AM |
|
sk858, I'm well aware of the fact that CitiBank is not a monopoly. I'm also quite aware of the fact that I take issue with the anti-trust laws. Any law of the United States the claims to exist to protect consumers should do that. We talk about fair and equal treatment under the law, but we also say "if your product does too well, then different laws apply to you." I think this is wrong. The same laws that apply to any competitor should apply to Microsoft and vice versa. If the market chose Windows, then the market should not be punished by foolish (or perhaps ill thought out is a better term) laws that prevent its choice from having teeth.
For the record, I want Internet Explorer, Passport, the .NET Framework, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, UPnP, MDAC, XML Core Services and Notepad to be included in every copy of Windows that I use. I want the visual styles of Windows XP along with its smooth widgets (buttons, scroll bars, forms, etc.) new start menu, and enhanced task manager. I am a consumer and I choose Microsoft. This trial is preventing a company that I support from giving me the products that I want. That is a great offense to a country that claims to have a free market economy. |
| #9 By 61 (168.254.3.98) at 1/14/2002 11:42:46 AM |
|
#27, do you know what innovate means? Apparently not, innovate does not mean the same thing as invent... look it up.
Micrsoft has INNOVATED many things in the past years..... Office smart tags are VERY nice, the Windows UI in itself is the best UI from a task-oriented point of view. There is a whole lot of things that MS has innovated, but you, like many other people, are so stupid, and close minded, that you hate anything MS does, and you will take a stance against them whenever possible. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2002 12:00:48 PM |
|
#27 - One of the fortunate things about having been following the industry since 1982 is that I'm familiar with the history from personal experience. I don't have to read someone's revisionist history to know what happened.
Given your stupid claims, I do have to assume that it is you reading revisionist history. It's kind of weird, I remember when Bob was released and I thought it was silly at the time. The product dropped off the shelves pretty quickly as a dismal failure, yet people like yourself keep bringing it up. Out of curiousity, did you ever use Microsoft Bob? Do you even know what it did? For the record, I never used Bob, and maybe that's why I don't care about it. daz - It's strange that you mention Mr. Starr. He along with Judge Bork were working on the side of the DOJ that was prosecuting Microsoft and trying to get the company split up. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4477804.html "High-tech trade group Project to Promote Competition & Innovation in the Digital Age (ProComp) drafted Starr to work with Robert Bork and Walter Dellinger, all former solicitors general, on the legal brief." Educate yourself about politics, learn what's happening in the world. Stop being an ignorant right-winger blaming everything on liberals. I assume at least you know who Robert Bork is? |
| #11 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/14/2002 12:16:45 PM |
|
#11 - You need a new IT department... Badly
#13 - All I have to say is don't compare this case to the Ma Bell case. In that situation Bell owned the entire market. And there was no possiblity of competition. You cannot say the same thing about Microsoft. There are alternatives and people who like the alternatives do go by them. In the case of Bell you could do nothing but use them or have no phone. #17 - "Why shouldn't Microsoft use its current products to promote other products" ... "anti-trust laws prevent this if the current product is already a monopoly" I'll throw this one back at you: "Study the law buddy" and over below as help. I was planing on a big "novel" of a post but I've decided to help some of you who never find out the facts for yourself do a little research. Below is a link to the actual LAW of antitrust: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/chapters/1/toc.html I personaly have read all of the sections and feel that only these two sections apply to the Microsoft case: Section 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor Section 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities However, it is debatable that they violated these actions if you carefully read the laws. Lastly, I've seen no evidence or studies that show how Microsoft has hurt the consumer. If someone knows of such, i would like to see them. And if someone could please explain to me, without the "M$" nonsense, how it will help consumers to shackle microsoft? I personally don't see a possibility of it, I personally don't think linux would be what it is today without MS (/me cringes but smiles) and what would linux do if they didn't have MS products to copy off of? |
| #12 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/14/2002 12:31:14 PM |
|
Just another link. Read this bad boy from the DOJ
Competitive Impact Statement http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm The logic presented in this proves 2 things. The goverment wants to help comptetitors NOT consumers and they want to make using a computer as complex as possible. |
| #13 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 1/14/2002 12:56:56 PM |
| #34 If you don't want what is offered, then don't buy Windows. |
| #14 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/14/2002 12:57:09 PM |
|
#34 If you don't want everything that comes with windows... THEN DONT USE WINDOWS!
You have a choice. Since when are we allowed to dictate, in a legal fashion, what a company can and cannot produce (other than illegal substances etc.). People like you make me laugh. I bought a car last month that had wheels I don't like. That does not mean that I can file suit to make them sell a car without the weels. My only rebuttle should be and IS to not buy the car. What I plan to do is use the wheels until I get another set of wheels I like. Then those wheels I didn't want in the first place will simply sit in my garage. In windows you can use Windows Media or Messenger or Internet Explorer until you download a replacement. Then you simply don't use the Microsoft version. Your argument is a reason why not to buy the product in your specific case... but by no means is it an argument that Microsoft is a monopoly or if they should be punished. The contracts MS used to use with OEM's is a reason for legal action... however, the punishment for such actions for both Section 1 and 2 of Chapter 1, Title 15, of the United States Code of which MS is charged with violating are clearly defined (See below). And say nothing about forcing companies to release code to the public or forced licensing of code. Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Monday, January 14, 2002 at 12:58. |
| #15 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 1/14/2002 1:22:02 PM |
| So let Microsoft pay $10,000,000 in fines and let this trial end! |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2002 1:58:10 PM |
|
#35 - You are absolutely correct. Actually in most of the cases I've seen offered, the company being claimed as innovative really wasn't the one who invented the concept to begin with. Such is certainly the case with Apple who seldom, if ever, has original ideas.
I still equate Microsoft to the Japanese industry. If you look at a number of markets the Japanese entered, consumer electronics, automobiles, etc. they dominated not by introducing new ideas, but by taking existing ideas and implementing them better. Taking new technologies and making them available to the masses cheapily and reliably. I used to follow the rec.autos.* newsgroups and the same argument would always come up there. The Japanese were not innovative, yet hmm... they sell a lot of cars, don't they? Yeah maybe some American automaker was the first to have variable valve technology back in the 1930's, but they never introduced a car for under $20k with the technology whereas Honda did. It's just a really pointless argument. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/14/2002 9:38:29 PM |
|
#42 - Please, please, please go educate yourself. Ignorance does not make our country great, but only furthers to damage our credibility.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:41:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
