ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Microsoft Witness Questions Penalty

Time: 02:41 EST/07:41 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Alex Harris

Tough antitrust penalties sought by nine states against Microsoft Corp. would hurt consumers and encourage other companies to use federal antitrust law as a substitute for their own research and development, an economist said Wednesday. Testifying as an expert witness for Microsoft, University of Virginia professor Kenneth G. Elzinga said the remedies proposed by the states would raise consumer prices and stifle innovation by Microsoft and other high technology companies.

If Microsoft is required to disclose technical information about its Windows operating system, as the states propose, Elzinga said it would result in "a dampening of incentive" for companies to do their own research and development. "Forcing any firm to share its intellectual property with rivals reduces incentives to innovate in the future," he said.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 315
Last | Next

The time now is 7:23:48 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 1896 (208.61.157.22) at 5/9/2002 10:01:05 AM

#2 Your intellectual property belongs to you and only to you. If the Government decides to take it away from you and share it with your competitors is like going back to the former Soviet Union that, besides ideological opinions, surely was not a succesfull economic model.

#2 By 1896 (208.61.157.22) at 5/9/2002 10:02:17 AM

#3 I suppose is this "jolly" the States are putting on stage.

#3 By 1896 (66.20.203.205) at 5/9/2002 4:16:58 PM

#Ramesees You can write to your representative and let him know what is your opinion. I live in FLorida, one of the non settling states, and I wrote them and let them know that because they are wasting my money they will not get my vote.

#4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/9/2002 4:19:20 PM

"History has shown that Republicans want less govt action, while democrats/states wants more govt actions. This case is a polictical issue."

Heh. No. History has shown Republicans say a lot of things they don't really mean. On the issue of govt actions, they are entirely for government regulations that hurt people and companies that support the Democrats. Oh like say Censoring hollywood.

This is a political issue, but it doesn't go down along party lines. I'm not going to go look up the numbers again, but several of the AG's are Republican, many of the state's governors are Republican and two of the lawyers for the states are Starr and Bork, both members of the Federalist Society along with Ted Olsen(US Solicitor General) and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah(one of the states opposing MS). I can't find confirmation that Ashcroft is a member, but he is definately a strong supporter of the Society.

I guess I'm growing tired of political issues being misrepresented.

#5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/9/2002 7:34:21 PM

#14 - Ahh, perhaps the difference is that the way I represent things can be substantiated with facts. That's not something most Republican activists can do because they are so used to lying.

#6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/9/2002 9:58:43 PM

Oh give me a break people.

Republicans and Democrats BOTH do their share of lying. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Bill Clinton, they are both guilty as charged. (Although one is charged more than the other... eheh).

The fact is neither Democrats NOR Republicans want the government out of people's lives. Each wants the government out of a *certain* part of people's lives, but more involved in other parts. Democrats feel the only way to have a free society is by controlling commerce through government actions. Republicans feel the only way to have a free society is by enforcing morality (often their morality - often Christian morality) on people through government actions.

For instance, the biggest support for the drug war comes from Republicans. From Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush... all of em were big government when it came to people smoking pot. If Republicans were really about getting the government out of people's lives, they would let adults make their OWN decisions about what they put in their OWN bodies. Do they? No. They have plenty of excuses... but all are either lies or pure ignorance.

But let's not leave the Democrats out of this one. Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to things like affirmative action. Now, granted, I see a lot of validity in their arguments... but the arguments don't seem to pan out in reality - but that's another subject. Clearly, Democrats think the best way to even the playing field is by forcing employers to hire people based on the color of their skin. Agree with affirmative action? Fine. But do you also agree that employers should be able to use ANY criteria they want when choosing who THEY are going to hire? Bit of a conflict there.

There are plenty of other cases to go along with those, too. Name a consensual crime. (As in, a crime where there is NO victim. Nobody to report the crime.) Gambling? Prostitution? Sodomy? Seat belt laws? Pornography? Public drunkeness? Public nudity? Homosexuality?

There are hundreds of crimes on the books of "Republican" and "Democrat" states alike that violate people's right to do whatever the hell they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt the person or property of another non-consenting adult. Where are the politicians that stand up against this baloney, and for the Constitution? They are few and far between, and none of them are Republicans or Democrats, that's for damn sure.

About 1,000,000 people are in jail RIGHT NOW for "crimes" in which nobody was hurt, and there was no victim. ONE MILLION PEOPLE. Not to mention the fact that the prosecution of consensual crimes costs the United States about 500 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. No to mention the fact that it corrupts the justice system. Not to mention the fact that it creates REAL crime. If that's not a case of big government, I don't know what the hell is.

Want more detail? Check out "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" by Peter McWilliams. You can download his book for free off http://www.mcwilliams.com/.

This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, May 11, 2002 at 01:10.

#7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/10/2002 2:23:37 AM

RMD - "Whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Bill Clinton, they are both guilty as charged. (Although one is charged more than the other... eheh). "

trumped up charges you mean.

I'm sorry, but since the Anita Hill hearings the lies and falsehoods have been getting worse and worse from the Republicans. Throughout the Clinton years it was one trumped up charge after another, whether it be Whitewater, Vince Foster's murder, Mena, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, whatever.

While I agree that both parties do have issues, one has far more issues than the other and should not be left off the hook so damn easily.

Want more detail? Check out "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. I don't think you can download the book for free, but it's worth every penny to learn the truth.

This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, May 10, 2002 at 02:24.

#8 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 5/10/2002 12:07:37 PM

RMD and Soda, Politicians will always lie and cheat no matter what party they come from. This will not end, to say one does more than the other is ridiculous. The person/politician lies and cheats not the party itself. The politician is a person and with people we have weakness and flaw. That is what the problem is, and it will never be solved. Every politician has his lies and secrets, get over it.

RMD, the drug war is a funny one, yes we should be able to make decisions for ourselves as adults, and yes pot is a stupid drug to go to jail over. But it puts money in the politicians pockets and also the states/localities for fines. Does that outweigh what it costs us to house the prisoners, no way. But politicians twist it all around, lobbyists don't like pot and think it is horrible. We as people see it as harmfull or harmless as alcohol. But certain people will tell you it is the gateway drug. It supposedly leads to stronger harder drugs. So I say, bust the person when they get that bad. If it was legal, less people would actually do it, it would be to easy to go down and buy a pack of joints from the local gas stations. No fun in that, plus it would all be the same, no good stuff or bad stuff. Maybe there would be lights and mediums and full flavored but still the fun of doing something illegal and that is hard to find would be gone.

#9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/10/2002 4:31:38 PM

mctwin2kman - Read that book by Brock... You'll suddenly be enlightened to just how many "people" within the Republican party lie, cheat, steal and subvert the constitution to the parties ends.

On drugs - If the only reason people do it is because it's illegal, wouldn't people stop doing pot if it was legal? They'd move to something different... I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect it's education on why drug use is stupid.

#21 - Why? He can't hear what I say anyway.

This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, May 10, 2002 at 16:32.

#10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/11/2002 1:08:12 AM

People do drugs because, more often than not, they feel good to do. Anybody who tells you different is a liar, or a politician... but I repeat myself. :-)

People should be free to do ANYTHING they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt the person or property of another non-consenting adult. PERIOD.

That means, crack, heroin, LSD, and anything else you can get your hands on. If you are adult, what the HELL gives the government the right to tell ME what I put in MY body!?

According to the Constitution, the government has NO SUCH RIGHT. They ignore the Constitution, they ignore the facts, and they ignore the American people.

With *very* few exceptions, I can think of no politician that I wouldn't fire given the chance.

#11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/11/2002 1:16:01 AM

#21 - You're kidding right? Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest liars I've ever had the displeasure of being forced to listen to. (Yes, forced... don't ask.)

I wouldn't care if they guy wasn't on national radio, but he convinces SO many people of his completely mindless drivel that it is truly scary.

For instance, he once said that global warming isn't a problem even if it is happening. Why? Well, if you have ice cubes in a glass of water, and the ice melts, the water level doesn't rise - so neither will the world's oceans as the polar ice caps melt.

And that reasoning would be perfectly sound, if it weren't for that little thing called ANTARCTICA, which is a huge LAND MASS covered in ICE. Could he really be that stupid?

Yes. He could, and he is. He also said there are more trees in the United States today than there were when Columbus landed. I couldn't make this stuff up.

Oh, and don't get me started on how many lies he put forth as fact in his several books, all of which I've read. (Reluctantly.) And they're not just "mistake" kind of lies, or "ignorance" kind of lies. These are the kinds of lies he actually had to manipulate data to get. He had to consciously ignore facts sitting directly in front of him in order say what he says in his book.

Rush Limbaugh is EXACTLY what's wrong with the Right.

This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, May 11, 2002 at 01:36.

#12 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 8:20:54 PM