| 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 Antitrust Delay Sought | |
|
||
| Time: 11:29 EST/16:29 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
A group of antitrust lawyers is asking the judge hearing the Microsoft case to stop the settlement process until she decides whether the company disclosed all relevant lobbying contacts with the government. The American Antitrust Institute claims that Microsoft didn't comply with a federal statute when the embattled software maker listed only contacts with the executive branch. The Tunney Act, a 1974 law that covers how federal settlements should be determined to be in the public interest, requires the declaration. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 215 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:15:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 2/1/2002 4:46:59 PM |
| I can hear the "giant sucking sound". This trial is like a huge black hole and all lawyers are being drawn in. Except, unlike black holes, all the lawyers come out the other side with their pockets full of money. |
| #2 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 2/1/2002 4:52:58 PM |
|
Comment by AOL in the newsbytes article:
------------------------------------------------------------ The comment: The manner in which Microsoft is already implementing portions of the [settlement] is among the most probative considerations the court can weigh in determining how — if at all — the proposed settlement will promote competition in the years to come. . . . We believe that the initial evidence shows that these provisions are completely ineffective. We are unaware of a single OEM that has used the "flexibility" provided to it by Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from the start menu, or from any of its multiple promotional placements on the desktop. — AOL Time Warner Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------ And I wonder why that is? When given the opportunity to exclude IE and other Microsoft tie-in apps, OEMs haven't. Think about that. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/1/2002 8:56:46 PM |
| You are saying exactly what AOL is saying, daz. AOL is suggesting that OEMs (who have requested to be able to make changes) haven't yet because they fear how MS may retaliate. I would be if I was an OEM and there was still no remedy and still plenty of room for appeal. |
| #4 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/1/2002 10:27:25 PM |
| I don't think it's because the OEMs fear retaliation from MS. I think they haven't done much different because the majority of their customers don't want them to. It's like when a big deal was made a while ago about OEMs being able to include Netscape. Despite them being able to include it, most OEMs didn't because there wasn't much demand for it. OEMs that produced made-to-order systems (Dell, Gateway, etc) had few requests for Netscape from customers, and many expressed that they would rather use IE, so OEMs generally didn't change anything. |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/2/2002 3:24:23 AM |
|
Sigh... alas, I couldn't agree with #6 more. Whether it was a pro-MS or an Anti-MS result of the case, it is very saddening to see the Federal government bought and sold so easily.
I continue to get a kick out of the fact that the original case was about Microsoft tying IE into Windows. Netscape claimed it (the tying) killed them, and was illegal. Of course, this isn't true on either account. IE reached 36% market share in September of 1997, and this was version 3.0. As we all know, it wasn't until IE 4.0 that Windows and IE were tied together. Microsoft went from essentially 0% market share in 1996 to 36% market share in less than a year, and with a browser that had absolutely no ties to Windows and had to be either purchased in retail outlets (for a near $0 cost) or downloaded for free, online. IE 4.0 was considerably better than the Netscape offering, and it was only a matter of time, tying or not, until IE was completely dominant. The primary reason for this was that Netscape simply didn't improve their product. They thought that their massive market share would last forever, and it wasn't until Microsoft crushed them that they realized something was up. Solution? Cry to the government. In-fact, the tying charge in the anti-trust case was dropped all together mid-way through the trial. Even the government gave up on that stupid argument. So the big question is, why does AOL get to sue Microsoft, and why do people STILL cite the browser tying as a reason to go after Microsoft? I'll give you an answer: stupidity and/or ignorance. There are plenty of other things to attack Microsoft about... try and be original for once. |
| #6 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/2/2002 3:28:20 AM |
|
Exactly #6. In interviews with Sun and other "competitors" about the proposed settlement or the case in general, consumers are never the issue. Sun and others always mention how the case doesn't do enough to help competitors.
Sun is pretty pathetic anyway. They once published a statement (can't remember if it was in an article about the case or in a press release) that basically said they can't compete with Microsoft as long as Microsoft keeps releasing updates to their product line. I couldn't believe at the time that a company would actually state publicly that they were too inept to compete. This post was edited by n4cer on Saturday, February 02, 2002 at 03:28. |
| #7 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/2/2002 4:50:45 AM |
|
I'm still looking for that quote I mentioned in my other message, but while looking I came accross a couple of funny lines from this article on Windows 2000's future release.
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/ms021400.htm On Win2k taking marketshare away from Unix: Sun claims Microsoft won't be up to it. ``Windows 2000 is where Sun's Solaris was in 1994,'' said Pat Sueltz, head of Sun's software operations. Last passage in the same article: Sun cuts prices In anticipation of the Windows 2000 rollout, Sun has slashed prices of its latest version of Unix, Solaris 8, which was released last month. Solaris 8 is available for $75, compared with $675 for Solaris 7. Sun's dominant presence in the server market and its pricing strategy will make it hard for Microsoft to compete, said Joyce Becknell, an analyst at Aberdeen Group in Boston. ``Sun is attacking Microsoft at its own game.'' --------- If Win2k was nothing to be worried about, why cut $600 off of your OS price. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/2/2002 11:52:52 AM |
|
n4cer - Actually Sun cut Solaris 8 down to basically free not because of Windows 2000, but because of Linux. Sun is losing massive marketshare to Solaris. There was a recent article in Computerworld stating that Oracle was going to begin running all of the internal operations on x86 boxes running Linux, instead of big Sun servers.
Although if it wasn't for Linux, that marketshare would have gone to Windows as Sun has priced themselves out of the market for the most part. But this is the paradox that Sun faces. They hate Microsoft, they spend all of their efforts attacking Microsoft. But anti-Microsoft people don't buy Sun... they go with Linux. So Sun is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Being anti-MS doesn't help them, but being anti-Linux would doom them too. Sun is in deep financial straights this year for the first time ever, within 5 they will probably no longer be a force in the computing world. Will they blame Microsoft? Of course. |
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/2/2002 3:55:04 PM |
|
I fully agree, Sodablue. I wonder when people will learn that it's much easier and more profitable to at least coexist with Microsoft instead of planning your every business decision around your hatred or envy of them. Steve Jobs has learned this to some extent.
I couldn't find the quote, but it doesn't really matter that much to me. I know what I read. It was around the time of Windows 2000's release. If anyone wants to refute it, so be it. While looking, I did come across several other bits of info like Sun cheating on a Java benchmark to make Java on Solaris appear 50% faster than Java on NT, and then blaming the benchmark, saying it had problems if it allowed them to cheat, and that it was their job to cheat the benchmark. :-) http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/1110/10java.html Here is another old article: http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1998-11/lw-11-netscape.html "Netscape is doing this because it's what's best for Netscape," Barksdale said. "This is not about the DOJ case." ---- "Our present intention is to continue with IE so we'll be bundled with Microsoft," he said. Asked whether Microsoft might be inclined to stop bundling AOL, Case said that Microsoft could not elect to discontinue the bundle. "It's at our option, not Microsoft's," he said. ----- "A combined Netscape and AOL, when all the dust settles, still has to compete with a very passionate team here at Microsoft ," said Microsoft spokesman Greg Shaw. The deal also will not provide the kind of boost to Java that Sun's Scott McNealy claims it will, Shaw said. "This deal is about the combination of two leading software companies that see the promise of the Internet and portal sites, and I don't think it has much to do with Sun and with Java," he said. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 215 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:15:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
