| 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 Asks Judge to Reject States' Sanctions Plan | |
|
||
| Time: 11:27 EST/16:27 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp on Wednesday asked a federal judge to dismiss the stringent antitrust sanctions that some state attorneys general want to impose on it, saying the states are trying to "displace" the Justice Department's decision to settle the case. Trying to bolster its legal argument before the start of remedy proceedings against the company, Microsoft told the judge that the nine states still pursuing the case are overstepping their authority by proposing sanctions that go beyond the Justice Department's settlement deal. "Under well-settled legal and constitutional principles, the non-settling states are limited to seeking redress for state-specific injuries caused by Microsoft's conduct," Microsoft said in its brief. "They cannot displace the United States in its role of establishing national competition policy." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:06:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/27/2002 12:11:23 PM |
|
Trial starts up again monday, right? I think next week is the hearing on the DOJ proposed settlement, and then the next week is a hearing on the states proposal.
|
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 12:53:14 PM |
|
K-K has a hearing set for the 6th where she'll address whether the settlement is in the public interest, but she also said her final ruling wouldn't occur before the non-settlers begin their remedy hearings on March 11th. But, yeah, that should be a big day, and I think it's the 6th not the 4th.
Didn't K-K already make a ruling that the states can legally proceed with their case simply by setting a schedule and granting them the opportunity to press for further remedy? It sounds like MS is clutching at straws, making an argument about a decision that has been made and moved past. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 2:31:09 PM |
|
Legally, the only person with a right to impose a remedy is the judge. The DOJ absconded from it rights and obligation to suggest a remedy in the interest of the federal government by choosing to settle with a consent decree. If the DOJ chooses not to uphold a unanimous conviction with a federally imposed remedy, then it is the Judge's decision and she can receive suggestions from anyone with standing in the case (which the states do have). It won't be a matter of the states affecting and enacting federal mandates; it will be the Federal Antitrust Circuit Judge who does that--she is appointed by the executive branch of the government. The Supreme Court, our judicial branch, can review it on appeal. In no way would this constitute states supervening and imposing their own jurisdiction over the DOJ.
People seem to forget that Prosecutors usually don't settle cases after they have been awarded a guilty verdict. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 2:40:50 PM |
|
z00ker, remember, btw, that K-K can impose any remedy she wishes: the DOJ's plan, the states' plan, a combination of the two, additional ideas which may have appeared in comments or in the District Court's decision... hell, she can even break Microsoft up if she wants to even though both the DOJ and states decided not to pursue this. She has stated this quite often even though she has also stated that the Courts will usually defer to the Prosecutors' plan if appropriate.
It was Penfield who said, "I don't know technology, Microsoft hasn't provided an alternative, I have to go with what the DOJ is asking from me." But in fact, he could have made up his own plan--remember, when he asked the DOJ, "are you sure it wouldn't be better to break them in 3 instead of 2?" In the remedy phase, the prosecutors are merely providing suggestions to the Court. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 4:22:49 PM |
|
Oh, by the way again, is the DOJ standing with Microsoft in stating that it's unconstitutional for the states to pursue a remedy? NO! Well, if only the federal gov't has jurisdiction over a federal antitrust case, isn't it only the government who can say that the states are usurping the rights of the federal gov't?
"They cannot displace the United States in its role of establishing national competition policy." Who the hell gave Microsoft the authority to establish national competition policy? |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 4:46:12 PM |
|
So let's see, this isn't a relevent constitutional objection to states' rights over the federal government and it's insulting to all of the other parties involved: the DOJ (Microsoft knows better than the DOJ the constitutionality of their own actions), the Judge (she knows that a final remedy is her's and her's alone, not the states or the DOJ), and to the states (which is acceptable but their assertion is that the PFJ is not in the public interest, hence, the settlement is only expedient to the executive office's own agenda and beliefs not the nations, and, hence, they are the ones who do represent the nation at large (from a judicial standpoint, what is appropriate considering the actions found illegal and the effect produced by the remedy)).
Which leads to exactly how pathetic this situation becomes for the DOJ if (and you know I think the PFJ will be) overturned--if it is overturned, it will be because the Judge does not consider it in the public interest considering the weight of the case. So in whom's interest was the settlement reached if the DOJ had already received a conviction? Not only that, but the DOJ has asserted that this is a wholely appropriate and adequate remedy. What does Ashcroft and his DOJ do then when K-K says, "It's not adequate, I've scheduled a remedy hearing for you a week after the states', better show up in Court with something more effective." After all, they (the DOJ) do have a conviction. How will the DOJ amend its remedy in such a way as to actually be adequate before the eyes of the Court? A bit ahead of myself, but next week should be fun, and I wanted to get some forward-looking questions on the table before then. Maybe I'll be proven completely wrong, and the settlement will be accepted. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 16:48. |
| #7 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 2/27/2002 5:43:52 PM |
| Jeesh... I've never seen someone have such an engaging conversation with themself! |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 5:48:21 PM |
|
It is engaging, ain't it?
I can't help it if softies won't rebut when you are logical, clear, and decisive. I guess they know they have no rebuttal. And when I antagonize, you all just begin insulting me, which isn't very interesting at all. I guess if you want something done right, you got to do it yourself. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/27/2002 7:21:27 PM |
|
The settlement won't be overturned. It will likely end up being slightly modified, but that's about it.
Sorry to disappoint you, jerky boy. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/27/2002 7:24:23 PM |
| We'll see. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:06:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
