| 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 Rejects Compromise in Antitrust Case | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft refused on Wednesday to offer further concessions to end its antitrust case, rebuffing a federal judge's invitation to revisit the demands of nine states seeking stiffer sanctions against the software giant. The state's proposed sanctions were "fundamentally flawed," Microsoft attorney John Warden told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during closing arguments. "We can't remedy this by changing a few words here and there," Warden said. "We can't fix it." The states accused the company of "thuggish" business practices in their closing presentation, and portrayed the judge as the last chance to stop Microsoft's bullying. "I suggest to you that Microsoft still doesn't get it and you're the only one left to tell them what it's all about," states' attorney Brendan Sullivan told Kollar-Kotelly. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:41:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (208.61.157.63) at 6/20/2002 1:02:14 AM |
| Well done. To hell these States, even in Russia Socialism has been dismissed! |
| #2 By 2062 (199.182.213.247) at 6/20/2002 1:28:16 AM |
|
Go Microsoft!
Despite attempts by Microsoft's enemies to beat microsoft by using the legal system microsoft is as strong as ever! I say drop the legal dispuits and fight microsoft in the market. -GOSH |
| #3 By 3339 (64.175.41.224) at 6/20/2002 4:00:36 AM |
|
This is what K-K ordered just before final arguments:
For Plaintiffs: • If the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy as written, what provisions in Defendant’s proposed remedy would be most important for an effective remedy? Along these lines, how could Defendant’s proposed remedy be modified to make its terms more acceptable to Plaintiffs? • In their examinations of various witnesses, Plaintiffs posed questions which incorporated a number of modifications to the language of their proposed remedy. In general terms, in what areas and in what ways could Plaintiffs’ remedy proposal be modified, while still preserving the ability of that proposal to accomplish Plaintiffs’ goals for a remedy? For Defendant: • If the Court rejects Defendant’s proposed remedy as written, as well as Defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, identify the provisions contained in Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy which, if included in the Court’s remedy, would prove least onerous to Defendant, yet remain effective as a remedy. Along these lines, how could Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy, or portions thereof, be modified to render the proposal more acceptable to Defendant? • As Defendant is well aware, its proposal has been criticized for “exceptions which swallow the rule.” Focusing on the exceptions and/or limitations in Defendant’s proposed remedy, identify those provisions which, from Defendant’s perspective, are more readily susceptible to reasonable modification. SO ORDERED. The first bullet is basically the same for each side, just flip-flopped. The second bullets seem pretty specific, and not worth not complying with--this is a court order after all. For the prosecutors, they are asked to pick their modifications--throughout the proceedings they said, "if we change this clause to this, is this acceptable"--I thought this was good strategically, but wasn't sure if it was a bad move to propose something that you knew you were willing to change--why not propose what will work?--but I also knew that the final remedy is at the complete discretion of the judge--all anyone can do is make a suggestion, the proposals. Now, look at the wording for what K-K asks of MS: "AS DEFENDENT IS WELL AWARE," it's proposal is a gift from an overfriendly, unaware DOJ that wants it over with, but a Judge can't accept it. "FOCUS" Microsoft. K-K has told you that you must comply. She is telling you that the DOJ settlement proposal offers no relief because of loopholes. She is telling you that she knows that you know this. And you tell her that you will not comply with her Court Order. AS DEFENDENT IS WELL AWARE... Anyone else think those words have a bit of bite for a one page court order? Anyone else think it might have been a bad idea not to comply? |
| #4 By 3339 (64.175.41.224) at 6/20/2002 4:13:59 AM |
|
"Warden told the judge that if its settlement with the Justice Department must be modified, Microsoft would just as soon eliminate many of its core provisions. The judge, a strong believer in finding middle ground in disputes, momentarily flushed red and began shaking her head with a faint smile."
-in the Washington Post |
| #5 By 2332 (165.247.1.146) at 6/20/2002 4:43:40 AM |
|
Sodajerk - Care to make a little wager on the outcome of the penality negotiations?
My prediction: Microsoft gets off with minor (by Microsoft's standards) monetary penalties in addition to the DOJ penalties. The States get nothing they want. |
| #6 By 1896 (208.61.157.63) at 6/20/2002 10:13:00 AM |
|
This is exactly the problem: Judges are not supposed to make rules just to apply the law. Problem is that the legal system in this country is based on the principle of the "common law" like in GB but based on the way people becomes judges the system doesn't work as well. Second don't underestimate the power of the agreement between the DOJ and MS; if MS bent with the judge it would mean that they messed up with the DOJ.
Bottom line is that this is not the OK Corral with the Judge as Wyatt Earp on a side and MS on the other. The company has so many options available, including moving its operations somewhere else. Nowadays, with this ongoing economic crisis, judges should be very careful about slashing succesful companies just because they are trying to ride the anachronistic idea to have politics run the economy. This post was edited by Fritzly on Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 10:14. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/20/2002 10:38:31 AM |
|
One only has to point to Judge Jackson as to what happens when they get mad and step outside of their role.
It's completely expected that Microsoft would reject everything. Why wouldn't they? They've already gone through this and compromised in the DOJ settlement. RMD - Have to agree, not one of the state's propose remedies had any merit. They should have made document file format openess a provision. |
| #8 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/20/2002 12:01:46 PM |
| #10, no, she can not order a break-up, it's already been determined in the Court of Appeals that this is not a good idea, and really, if you actually think about it with a SANE mind (obviously something #12 lacks) then you would see it too. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/20/2002 1:01:00 PM |
|
#14 - It ain't going to happen.
Christ these anti-MS sheep sure have their heads stuck up the behind of a beaver. |
| #10 By 1896 (208.61.157.63) at 6/20/2002 2:35:58 PM |
| Well I don't think MS will agree to release its source codes to competitors. The day this will happen will be the day to move somewhere else, I don't like communist countries, this kind of regime failed before and will fail again. |
| #11 By 1896 (208.61.157.63) at 6/20/2002 2:42:03 PM |
| #10 Again this is the problem: Judges here have too much freedom to deliberate about any questions. In order to be fair "Justice" must be coded and not be let at the mercy of people mood. About the breakup have you ever considered how cheaper would be to move your business operations somewhere else? Let us wake up guys, we are not living in the Heaven on Earth, we attract the poorer here but the richer move somewhere else and this means something. |
| #12 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 6/20/2002 3:18:33 PM |
| If this judge really comes down hard on MS, we will see this go to the supreme court, which will take another 5-10 years. By the way, MS is doing fine while fighting this case. Their competitors, who think the only way to compete is via the courts, are not doing that well. MS will eventually "win" this case. Win here means something close to the DOJ settlement instead of Jackson's stupid ideas. |
| #13 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/20/2002 5:32:28 PM |
| The problem is, what the states want is so completely rediculous and absurd, that what CKK thinks is "middle" is actually still on the side of absurd! What she should be interested is fair. She is a JUDGE and she's making the States and MS do all the work. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/21/2002 11:08:26 AM |
|
#24 - Bizarre... All of your arguments about superior products losing have already been refuted by simply looking at examples like MS Money, MSN, Mediaplayer and so forth.
Bundling an inferior product does not help it's market position, this has been shown time and time again. I think it would be better if you put forth arguments which could be supported by facts. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/21/2002 2:00:34 PM |
|
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-937302.html
Quicktime is showing a markably increased market share. Real and Microsoft are still in lead positions, but regardless Quicktime has been able to gain marketshare because they offer a good product. AOL is still in commanding marketshare despite their whining about MSN, as is Quicken... and mediaplayer has hardly any marketshare when compared to winamp, musicmatch and others. The bundling of early IE product with windows did not improve it's market position. Again, if you look at the timeline of when products were released and when Microsoft gained market dominance you'll see that the dominance didn't occur until after Netscape had abandoned the browser market and MS released version 5. Hardly evidence that bundling had any effect on marketshare considering MS started bundling with version 2. I used AmiPro and liked it very much. Lotus had substantial marketshare right up until the point of Smartsuite 96 when AmiPro changed to WordPro and was generally regarded as crap. Not only did they break backwards compatibility with AmiPro, they also released a buggy product. Companies looking to upgrade at the time rejected the Lotus suite and moved towards others. As far as the opinion of quality, at the time I was reviewing office products in 1996, all the magazines were picking Microsoft's suite far and ahead of competitors. WordPerfect was regarded as a somewhat acceptable choice, whereas Lotus was regarded as a don't waste your time release. It was at this point that Microsoft gained market domination... Not through bundling, but through superior product as evidenced by magazine reviews at the time. Unfortunately what you claim as facts are really just opinions and again your argument is not well supported by anything other than supposition and hearsay. :( |
| #16 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/22/2002 9:48:43 AM |
|
#26, then how did Netscape have over 70% marketshare until IE4 came out?
IE came with Windows since the first version of Win95. Kinda makes your point totally moot. Early versions of QT were superior, in some ways, and Media Player has always been bundled with Windows, however, nobody started using it until Media Player 7 came out for anything other than movies, and that wasn't bundled with anything but WinMe, which wasn't a big hit. Not only that, but WMP is a far superior product to QT now. WMP is NOT in the lead posistion, Real Network's RealPlayer is, because it USED to be superior (however ALWAYS sucked), and WMP is closing in on it. ALSO, QT is BUNDLED with MacOS. Bundling it's products with Windows does have benefits to the consumer, why else would other companies bundle the SAME EXACT type of products with EVER SINGLE other OS on the market? So called "exclusionary" contracts aren't illegal, it simply says if you go totally Windows, you will get a discount, if not, you have to pay normal price. It is up to the company dealing with MS to accept or decline the contract. What you are arguing is wheather or not Microsoft is allowed to develop new products and really have no sense of the market or of the consumers. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:41:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
