| 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 |
 |
Telecom Executive Defends Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 12:21 EST/17:21 GMT | News Source: Press Release | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
A telephone company executive on Monday disputed allegations that strong antitrust penalties are needed to stop Microsoft from frustrating future voice and data messaging systems. Gregg Sutherland, a senior vice president at Quest Communications, said the ability of emerging messaging systems to operate together requires that different systems communicate. The proposed penalties "would deprive users of Microsoft-based systems of the ability to send e-mail messages with confidence," Sutherland testified. "Microsoft would have to turn Microsoft-based systems into virtually useless platforms for e-mail communications" | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:10:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 1:48:31 PM |
|
I'm a little bit confused here. The article does not provide much detail about what is actually being claimed or disputed.
It seems to not have anything to do with email, but rather instant messaging. They keep referring to 'unified messaging'... so it's very buzzword compliant, just no detail. BTW... sutherland is with Qwest communications, not Quest as the article states. That's just one error I noted. |
| #2 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/29/2002 4:04:31 PM |
| It is interesting that these lawyers so concern about the ties between MS n Qwest did not have any concern when people from Sun or AOL were speaking and suggesting remedies in this case. WHat a shame for the justice system. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 4:54:32 PM |
|
Fritz, you are a weird one most of the time. Why would the prosecutors try to impeach their own witness? MS's DEFENDING lawyers went after the AOL, Sun, Real witnesses the same as the prosecutors are going after MS's witnesses.
Of course, softies think that by being the competitor that is enough to impeach the witness--which is a joke. On the other hand, the AMD and Qwest witnesses have proven quite comical. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 5:46:11 PM |
|
"Of course, softies think that by being the competitor that is enough to impeach the witness--which is a joke."
I'm curious sodajerk... Why is it a joke? They are obviously quite biased, even more so than the witness from AMD and Qwest. If you look at it AMD and Qwest have far less to gain from this trial than say AOL or Sun. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 6:34:46 PM |
|
It's a joke because you are saying that if they compete with MS they cannot possibly have legitimate concerns, or rather--you cannot trust their arguments and must fail to address them because they MUST be biased because they are COMPETITORS. In other words, you are saying that you cannot have an unbiased opinion from anyone in the industry unless they are testifying on behalf of MS.
AMD and Qwest have less to gain? They have both basically admitted they testified in order to receive favor with MS. I suppose that huge deal between Qwest and MS that was put under lock and key and potentially implicates Qwest in their own monopolistic activities isn't something their concerned about protecting? I suppose AMD isn't going to be made or borken based on MS's support of its porcessors? Please. This is a joke. |
| #6 By 1896 (208.61.156.110) at 4/30/2002 12:51:36 AM |
|
Being called a weird one by you is a compliment Sodajerk. The prosecutors are supposed to act on behalf of customers and not AOL or SUN. The difference is that MS pay its lawyers bills while I am paying the State Attorneys who are just puppets repeating the scripts that AOL n SUN people wrote for them. Among other thing you and not only you completely miss the meaning of the word "superpartes" which is what State Attorneys and Judges should be.
|
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/30/2002 1:06:01 AM |
|
sodajerk - Well then by your argument, partners and customers of Microsoft also have legitimate concerns.
AOL, Sun, Oracle, who else? Oh yeah that Novell guy and so on... all basically admitted that they testified in order to receive favor against MS. Please this is a joke. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/30/2002 12:23:54 PM |
| But I didn't attack the Qwest or AMD witness for being partners--I blasted them for being morons, for not knowing anything about what they were testifying for, for providing contradictory evidence, and for doing it for MS's favor. You can make the same arguments if you like, but just saying they're competitors is not an argument. That's my point. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:10:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
