| 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 to Reimburse States | |
|
||
| Time: 01:06 EST/06:06 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. is paying about $10 million to reimburse the legal bills of nine states that have settled the antitrust case against the software giant, according to interviews with state representatives. Other states that opted to continue pursuing the case rather than settle will have to wait for reimbursement until they end their effort to win more stringent penalties against Microsoft. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 198 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:48:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/2/2002 4:45:37 PM |
|
You're all missing a key point.
Consumers don't write a contact that determines what producers sell them, PRODUCERS write that contract. Imagine if in any purchase, the person doing the purchasing could forcefully instruct the producer on exactly what they will sell to them, and at what price. That doesn't make any sense! The way it works is the opposite. Consumers have their say through a simple choice: buy or don't buy. Producers will be, in effect, forced to change their methods based on that simple choice. If #2 feels that the downtime for XP or MSN is causing more grief than benefit, then that magical choice comes up: stick with MSN/XP, or not. If enough people feel the same way... poof... Microsoft either goes out of business or changes. The McDonalds incident is a funny one. Personally, I don't agree with the court's decision. While the coffee was far too hot, there is a certain expectation of coffee being hot in general. A normal activity with coffee is not to pour it on your thighs, and therefore McDonalds shouldn't be responsible for something doing something with coffee that they shouldn't have done. It is common sense (indeed, biology) to carefully sip things you know are potentially hot. The human lips are extremely sensitive to heat, so no contact is actually required to determine temperature. I've burnt my mouth of coffee that was far less hot (indeed, many would say it was just right) than the coffee the woman had, but I certainly didn't sue because it was my fault for not testing it first. This is similar to why businesses can be held responsible for icy sidewalks. There is an expectation of no-ice on sidewalks. I expect to be able to walk on a sidewalk without breaking my neck. Because the business is the "supplier" of the sidewalk, they implicitly consent to that expectation, and should be held responsible if they do not. On the other hand, if I were dancing backwards while jumping up and down across the sidewalk, and hit a very small patch of ice that wouldn't have caused me to slip if I were walking, they are not responsible. McDonalds was certainly reckless in their production of coffee, and if the woman (who presumably had been to that McDonalds before) knew this, she should have exercised her right not to go there. Instead, she went, bought coffee, and placed the coffee between her legs while driving. Would you all feel the same if it was a Mom and Pop restaurant that was forced out of business because the woman sued them? I often get the feeling that simply because McDonalds could easily absorb the costs, it makes it OK to sue them. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 198 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:48:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
