| 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, Feds OK Settlement Change | |
|
||
| Time: 20:03 EST/01:03 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks, Tim. Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department disclosed significant changes Thursday to the proposed settlement in their landmark antitrust case, partly to stem criticism from many legal and technology experts that the software giant was getting off too easy. The company and the government outlined the changes in court papers filed in Washington with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who must decide in the coming months whether to approve the settlement. The Justice Department described the deal Thursday as "a comprehensive remedy that puts into place meaningful, effective and enforceable restrictions on Microsoft." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:31:52 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/28/2002 8:24:29 PM |
|
Notice how MS upped their anti? Not only are the states supervening the executive branch so is the Judge if she does anything other than roll over. Microsoft, have you ever heard of Checks and Balances?
"Microsoft called [Tunney's complaint's] "meritless complaints," and said Tunney's opinion, "coming over 25 years after enactment of the statute, is irrelevant as a legal matter." Laws expire after 25 years, Microsoft? "The senior Justice official declined to say whether the government believes Microsoft was obligated to disclose its congressional discussions. "It's their obligation, not ours," the official said." But as the enforcement and prosecution arm of our federal gov't, shouldn't you try to make Microsoft, the company you are litigating against, comply with the law, DOJ? How insulting can MS and the DOJ get? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 28, 2002 at 20:24. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/28/2002 10:29:06 PM |
|
The issue is the wording of the Tunney Act. It says that they must only disclose their conversations with regards to the settlement that they have had "with any officer or employee of the United States"
Only the executive branch has officers, and congress critters are not employees of the United States. That is the way the law is worded, and it was AT&T's belief that it also only referred to discussions with the executive branch. After all, Congress has no authority in these matters so what would it matter? So from a strict legal standpoint, Microsoft is in the right. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/1/2002 1:02:14 PM |
| soda, I'm not making a comment on the Tunney Act itself, just on how arrogant and fallacious Microsoft's and the DOJ's argument are. Microsoft's only rebuttal to Tunney is that he is now 25 years older so he doesn't know the law that he passed anymore. Brilliant. The DOJ's argument for not caring whether or not MS complies is laziness--they are the one's litigating this case still aren't they? they are Our prosecutors? And by the way, the omission from the DOJ suggests that Congressional contacts should be included--in this case, they don't want to pursue it, but they also don't want to say, "Yeah, sure, no one no longer has to be concerned about complying with this law." |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:31:52 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
