Microsoft & Justice Department

So let me ask you guys this: If MS sells you an OS without a browser? How are you going to download one? FTP? OK... how would the average user get onto the internet to download a browser?

Someone asked me in a shackmsg to expound on "the legalities of MS", so I did, to the tune of about 7 1/2 pages:
http://clem.mscd.edu/~yettern/ms_legal.htm

made with StarOffice


MoNsTeR

frankly i see nothing wrong with microsoft bundling whatevertheheck they wanna bundle with their OS.

Their browser is superior to netscape, and i prefer their MSN messenger over AIM.

Microsoft should do whatever it wants with its Operating System and put the programs they want on it, because it's theirs. How would you like it if you were making a cake and the government told you that you can't put cream on it. It just comes down to people hating on MS for being successful. MS is not putting a gun to your head to buy their OS. If you don't like it, then you all should get together and make an OS.

my two cents

Jesus, what a bunch of whiners. Go to Linux, then. Bye! :)

"...offer versions of Windows with and without added features such as MSN Messenger."

Thank God. Those features suck anyway.

Silliest settlement I've ever seen. Although not final, there wouldn't be leaks of a settlement any stronger. Doesn't touch one tenet of reducing monopolistic powers/antitrust.

This also comes with the dropping of the individual States' cases, and therefore, no civil cases could be brought to fruition either, which was where the real damage was likely to occur. By Settling this--Kudos to MS's legal team--they made up for incredible lost ground, but likely it had more to do with the republican administration coming in. Razberries to consumers, who will likely have to depend on Linux as their last hope for any form of cheap desktop on i386. I hear snickers on that last comment... :)

There is also the Euro suits, which will likely go the opposite way. Funny how Maarten wants to move to the States and I want to get the hell out of this false democracy...heh...

I find this stunning in that legislation against corporations is now so short-sigted. With fewer companies controlling the media and operating system worlds, the capitalistic model is starting to show it's weaknesses. I see an eventual end to anti-trust. With corps under control of courts and politics, well, you know the rest. SHould be relatively predictable.

"Uh.. yeah we promise to stop breaking laws."

You mean, of course, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I present same in its entirety:
SECTION 1 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

SECTION 2 Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Yep, that's it.

Now I had written quite the thesis here about why the Sherman Act is incompatible with the Rule of Law, etc etc etc, but it was over 4k and got rejected :( So I'll just summarize.

Read the Sherman Act. There is no way a court can objectively determine whether it has been violated, because it uses ambiguous terms without defining them. Further, divestiture (breaking up a company) is not included in the list of penalties, and thus in ordering that penalty, the court itself breaks the law.

Even if you accept the legitimacy of anti-trust law (which I do not), you cannot accept the Sherman Act as a viable implementation, nor can you accept the way in which that law has been executed by the American courts.


MoNsTeR

They should just put stuff like MSN messanger in the Plus! pack.

I

LOVE

THIS

COMPANY!


YEAHAHAHHAAAHAHA!!!!!!!!11

MS is sitting pretty on this and they know they've got the leverage because of the economy right now. I'm sure Bill is gloating in his usual arrogant style because, if this deal gets finalized, Microsoft has won the case.

Are you sure you want an Xbox?

I can only hope that Microsoft shoots itself resoundingly in the foot with its bullshit XP and .NET licensing schemes.

another MS-related article:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20011101/tc/prepare_for_microsoft_to_inflate_xp_success_1.html

it's interesting that they are only licensing XP now, even if you want to run Win2k.

Jesus, slap on the wrist anyone? So what they're saying is basically: Uh.. yeah we promise to stop breaking laws.

How short memories we have. Microsoft was fined and ordered to stop with the OEM bullshit back in 1994 and they kept fucking doing it anyway, here we are again in the same place.

"Oh baby, I'm sorry, I can change this time, I mean it, just give me one more chance." -Microsoft

well I'm glad the Bush administration is bending over and greasing up so easily for Bill Gates... >:(

/me pats slackware box.

Microsoft is still in the driver's seat, and they're going to keep doing what they've always been doing.

--Loco3KGT

Bah, Microsoft will keep playing hardball with the OEMs. If the OEMs don't include IE, MSN Messenger, and all the other nonessential MS bloatware, they'll jack up the price for a Windows OEM license.

The DOJ better watch Microsoft like a hawk for the next five years.

shack ownz..loool

hehehehhehe