25 More States Oppose MSFT Antitrust Dismissal 255
phebz23 writes "News.com is reporting that 25 more states (even Washington!) are rallying behind the previous 9 to prevent Judge Kollar-Kotelly from dismissing the case on the grounds that the states should not have say in antitrust policy which is opposite of Microsoft's motion. They cite the Clayton Act, which grants them the authority to continue the case." Important to note that the states say: "even when the federal government has proposed to settle a case. Congress has granted the states clear authority to proceed independently under Section 16, despite the fact that the federal government has chosen not to act, has proposed to settle a case, has in fact settled a case, or has taken the matter to trial."
cordless phones affected? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:cordless phones affected? (Score:1)
Re:cordless phones affected? (Score:1, Offtopic)
... note to self: stop smoking crack at work.
Re:cordless phones affected? (Score:1)
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? There is no real issue; the states have a right to proceed as written in statute.
I think the underlying point here is that MS's motion is patently absurd, and they know it. My guess is the are doing it to delay as long as they can because CKK isn't turning out to be the pushover they expected, and they see the end coming.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, a signifigant number of cases have been dealt with which were opposing existing laws, such as Pleshy v. Ferguson, or Brown v. Board of Education.
Have no doubt, MSFT will push as hard as they can to erode the ability of states to harm them.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Witness Oregon - we've passed (TWICE) a death with dignity act. It allows terminally ill residents to request from a doctor (with a 2nd opinion, and only if the physician feels the person making the request isn't mentally unstable) a lethal perscription when they have 6 months or less to live.
Republicans are very wary of pissing off their right wing so called "religous" base.
[I digress madly here, so if you want the short version, skip the next section!]
I say so called, because their religeon as far as I can tell, is trying to get the state to "improve" the morality of its' citizens. [Before you get all foamy at the mouth, I am a conservative protestant abstraction too.] What's so utterly absurd about this, is that people choose to take the steps to a higher spiritual morality - the state doesn't influence anything. Harranging your citizens or outlawing what you see as immoral behavior won't improve the spiritual lives of those around you. A spiritual experience is what I choose FOR MYSELF - no one can "help" me choose it. The only encouragement that I can see that might be appropriate, is that of a close friend, of whom I ASK about spiritual issues. Notice that this is MY CHOICE to investigate spiritual avenues.
[End of wild digression! Sorry...]
I just wish the Republican party would slink back to being a conservative economic policy group, that generally supports a laise fair policy. Get out of the religous/moral stuff - it's not doing you or the country any good. Plus, it just gets us more and more Rep candidates that are extreme, because they're the only ones who get through the primaries.
Anyhow, I'll cease ranting, but it generally seems that both parties will take whatever stance they want, as long as it's convienient at the time.
Makes me want to spit!
Cheers!
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Doubt if it's exactly "without question". Otherwise there would be little need to creativly apply the commerce clause over the 10th ammendment.
Even if these laws were not questioned at the time certainly there are people questioning them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
statistically, the random number of poorly punched cards should be distributed in such a way that it shouldn't alter the basic percentage of votes for each candidate
True enough in theory. But in practice it was not the case. I can't find the cite or the site this morning, but studies that were done by several major newspapers show that votes were disproportionately rejected in primarily black voting districts. In other words, while in theory you are correct, the rejection should have been random, in practice if you were poor and black you had a better chance of getting your vote thrown out. And considering the ultimate margin by which Bush won the state, that disparity in voting cost Gore the election.
I've been consistent. My philosophy is that we are 1 country, and every person in that country should have the same basic rights. And when one state wants to grant more rights to its people, that is its perogative, and the follow through should be that all people in all states have those additional rights. But the reverse when rights are restricted is not true. There are some caveats and addendums to that philosophy, but I've been consistent with it.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Has this actually been fixed. The simplist method would be everyone voting in the same election gets exactly the same type of ballot paper (also if several elections are being held at the same time each voter has several separate ballot papers. Possibly as an easy to dismantle book if there are more than 2 or 3)
The funny thing is though, when they recounted and included the double-punched ballots where there was a clear-intent (ergo, someone had written a vote down on them) then Gore won by a slight margin.
If there were a significent number of these it would point to a flaw in the operation of the voting. In voters somehow not being able to obtain a new card.
Let alone that appropriate procedures to ensure proper security of the ballots whilst they were in contention did not appear to exist.
i dont think it would go to the supreme court (Score:2)
I really doubt that the Supreme court will take this.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:1)
Microsoft has brought this on themselves (Score:5, Funny)
This is I feel the beginning of "to the pain" for microsoft. I wonder if even they understand fully how quaint little laws from the states themselves will begin popping up dragging them into dangerous and legally hopeless territory?
Re:Microsoft has brought this on themselves (Score:3, Interesting)
Jaysyn
Re:Microsoft has brought this on themselves (Score:1)
To step on a huge company like Microsoft it's going to take a big mofo boot, and in the act of stepping, your bound to take out many helpless ants...
Re:Way off topic (Score:2)
Well, cheers!
Mr Editor...slashdot will take care of itself mostly - it would be wise to either quit moderating, but if you insist, then allow yourselves to me MetaModerated.
That'll help keep things fair and reasonable.
But, I'm not holding my breath!
Cheers!
Resistance... (Score:2, Insightful)
When will the states learn they can't compete with MS?!?!
Heh, just kidding.
Seriously though, what is the impact of the States continuing the case if the Federal Government has already dismissed it?
Does it lessen the damage(s) or penalties that could have originally been levied on M$?
Re:Resistance... (Score:2, Insightful)
"They invade our [harddisk] space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire [open source] worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! [with GPL!?]" said Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in First Contact
Seriously though, any state would fight for this right. It is a dangerous precedent.Governmental controls (Score:5, Insightful)
If the states did not have this kind of legal standing, cases that stretched over administrations could side-step the law entirely.
Re:Governmental controls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Governmental controls (Score:2, Funny)
Almost unsurprising (Score:4, Interesting)
The states are, at the minimum, protecting their right to bring suit. If the Attorneys General of the states didn't react to the MS contention on standing, they would be falling down in their responsibility to protect the states' legal rights in court.
It will be interesting to see what the actual filings say... so far, I haven't found a public link to them.
hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
The government can't help it. The protection is completely integrated with the Operating System. Removing it would break the government completely, or worse, we'd be seeing literally thousands of U.S. government variants! You don't want that, do you?
Re:hmm (Score:2)
At this point, why not. The federal government is only in the war business anyway. Look at the Bush family and the Carlyle group for instance. War=$$$. That's it, that's all. Somehow, I can't think we'd be better off with 50 state governments. At least you'd have a choice of where to live. As it is, we're all patsies for the folks with the cash.
MS is screwed on this one (Score:3, Interesting)
Then more come.
And more.
Pretty soon any state's attorney looking to add a notch to his belt buckle is dragging you into court on this violation, or that violation, and using state law, not federal, to force you into any compromising position they choose.
Now mind you, this won't put them out of business (the old, don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg theory). But forget about the days where you only had to face a -significant- lawsuit once every 4 or 5 years. Get ready for several a year from now on. And no settlement is going to make it go away.
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything the tobacco cases show that the government would be better suited to tax using a tax and not a settlement.
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:2)
I don't think so. If money was owed here, it was to the people deceived and actually harmed by the claims made by the tobacco industry, or to their descendents or relatives if they've already died. The government was owed *nothing*; the people who weren't harmed by the deception shouldn't get a goddamned dime, whether directly or indirectly through government spending of the proceeds.
The settlement was one of the biggest fucking ripoffs in history as far as victims were concerned. And the government did it to keep the tobacco industry from being sued out of existence, not out of any concern for the 'public good'.
Max
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:2)
Plenty of drugs which are far less addictive and far less toxic are completly illegal. Also one of the issues with smoking isn't drugs it's air pollution (including forcing people who just happen to be nearby to injest the drug.) Methods such as eating, drinking, injecting and snorting enable drug users to enjoy their drugs without forcing anything on other people.
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:1)
unfortunately, big tobacco is still going strong, and still advertising to kids, despite that multi-giga-buck settlement.
i wonder if MS has found a way to make their products addictive too.
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MS is screwed on this one (Score:2)
That sounds like the "upgrade treadmill"
It's still good (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, a LOT of the public doesn't really care or understand the ins and outs of this trial. The more states that stand up for their rights, the more the public gets to learn about Microsoft's blatant misuse of their monopoly. It does drag on and on, but it degrades Microsoft's public image by constantly being in court for stuff they KNOW is against the law.
I wonder (Score:2)
WOH!!! Surprised at Washington! (state) (Score:4, Informative)
(such as the 'story' on 'software piracy' that they aired last night. Including how you lose out on that lovely support MS gives you, yah right, LOL! If you buy a plan that includes it. . . . Ah, or how piracy only saves companies a 'few' dollars, not mentioning that those office CDs cost a few hundreds from MS and that buying them FROM piraters costs only a few dollars. Heh.)
All of the stories have such a horrid positive angle to them that I swear MS could declare that Washington State is seceding from The Union and nobody in the news bureaus would bat an eye.
Re:WOH!!! Surprised at Washington! (state) (Score:2)
The tv commerical that pisses me off is about kids who are smoking a joint, then they say the drug money is used for supporting terrorism.
-
Sure you can trust the government! Just ask an Indian!
Re:WOH!!! Surprised at Washington! (state) (Score:2)
I have the solution (Score:3, Interesting)
1. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft shall be prohibited from selling any operating system product directly or indirectly to a computer manufacturer.
2. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft application products shall limit their file formats to an approved version of XML. Furthermore, for a period of 10 years, any changes to application file formats shall be announced and documented nine months prior to their commercial introduction.
3. Microsoft shall release upgrades to existing versions of applications to enable them to write the documented XML file format and to disable their ability to write the previous proprietary file formats. Their ability to read the previous proprietary format shall remain unchanged.
Now sit down and think what the world would be like.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I have the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is to restore competition. Microsoft was able to destroy the market for OS products years by forging exclusive OEM distribution agreements that incorporated a little trick called cliff pricing. This was ruled illegal in the first antitrust case years ago.
By prohibiting MS from selling to OEMs, the marketplace of operating systems is restored. Customers can buy what they want be it Windows or whatever. I suspect (contrary to your assertion) that what would emerge would be a number of Windows compatible operating systems to leverage the huge windows compatible applications base.
The second part of the monopoly is in office suites. This came from Microsoft's ability to take advantage of their control of the platform. Opening the file formats just allows other products to interoperate on a level playing field.
I don't see that this proposed remedy is exessively punitive, it merely restores the marketplace to a state that existed before the illegal behavior. In many ways I feel it is similar to the breakup of the telephone monopoly. True, people would be inconvienced with the burden of choice.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the heck do you want to force consumers to purchase their operating system seperately and install it themselves? That's like forcing me to buy a car without an engine. Screw that.
- - - - -
The only thing anti-trust courts need to do with OEM contracts is not allow Microsoft to base prices of Windows based upon whether other software is bundled with the system. That fixes the OEM problem, and restores choice to the consumer.
Let the civil courts handle punishment/damages claims.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Beyond that, 10 years is a very long time in a very ast moving industry like technology. 2-5 years might have been more reasonable.
However, you fail understand WHY OEMs sell Windows with the PC - it adds value to the consumer. COuld you imagine having to purchase a car without an engine? Not a great analogy, I know, because Microsoft doesn't build the cars but the premise is the same. When GM or Ford sells you the car with the engine or wheels they add value to the consumer.
You'll probably say you get a choice of engines when you buy a new car. Sometimes and even then they are designed by the same company. To make the analogy work in your favor one would be able to put a GM engine in a Ford vehicle. It doesn't work that way for a number of reasons, least of which being it would increase the cost ofautomobiles having to build engines to a basic, least common denominator design so they could be dropped in a competing manufacturers automobile.
Back to the OS. Dell tried selling desktops with Linux preinstalled and it didn't go over well. They stopped because they were losing money on the venture, not because Microsoft bullied them. The current remedy the DOJ and Microsoft signed will allow OEMs to offer alernate OSes but the OEMs will only do so if they can make money. If they run into the problems Dell had then they will drop the OSes draining their profits. That's business.
Re:I have the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
People install operating systems all the time. This very minute, Wal-Mart [walmart.com] will sell you any of 9 models of PC without an OS. Replacement hard drives come blank and, "re-install Windows" is probably the most commonly spoken phrase in tech support today.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Also, I'd wager that once Linux sees a significant penetration into the consumer desktop market - 20-30% perhaps - that tech support will see many more "re-install Linux" suggestions as well. The reason being, OSes are complex no matter which one and it is far easier for tech support to suggest a reinstall than to hand hold a technologically inept person through a proper fix procedure. Not to mention the various in window managers and configuration settings for typical Linux installs making tech support even more difficult. This might not be such a big deal because Linux is going to have to standardize their UI before they even reach 5% market penetration of the desktop OS market.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
It may add value to one specific group of customers. That is the home user who only ever buys computers one at a time, occasionally. (Even then these arn't a homogeneous group of people, so the "one size fits all" logic of the OEM install is suspect.)
However for the corporate customer, who either regularly buys computers or buys them by the tens or hundreds and requires interoperation with existing software and networks, OEM preinstalls can at best be a complete and utter waste of time. Even if they have supposedly the "right" version of Windows (assuming they even use Windows) and application software preloaded it's probably completly wrongly configured. Either they can have someone spend hours reconfiguring it or simply reinstall/drive image from scratch. These customers want machines to a standard, but it's their standard...
Guess which kind of customer buys the most computers.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Open file formats and BSD licence the entire Windows* codebase.
Probelm solved. MS would have to compete on features, stability and price. Winners: consumers. Losers: Well, they already are, even if they haven't figured it out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows CE
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Considering some code written for some revisions of 95 won't even run on all versions of 95 this is suspect. There is also plenty of code which requires such bodges as making the executable read/write or giving the user elevated privileges in order to even work at all on NT/XP. Whilst this might not require modifying the application it does require tossing away some of the major advantages NT/XP have over 9X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
You have to go back quite a long way to find a situation when Windows wasn't forked. Indeed the current version, XP, is quite deleberatly forked 4 or 5 ways by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Except that consumers don't want the same thing. One size most definitly does not fit all.
Some want the current status quo, some want to be able to buy a computer and an OS licence from the same source and do their own install some want to source their hardware and software (which may or may not be software the hardware supplier could supply anyway) from different sources.
IMHO the problem here isn't MS selling to OEMs so much as having "OEM" and "retail" licences. Rather than having a situation where there is only one entity called a "Windows (version XYZ) Licence" and where Microsoft is able to make discounts based around any criteria other than number of units (per period of time).
Preventing direct sale to OEMs is a possible way to rectify this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:1)
- Must publish on the Internet in a timely manner after release the format of Excel, Word, etc. document's for third party vendors to also open and save to that format.
- Must publish on the Internet in a timely manner after release the api to their filesystem.
You get Microsoft to do those two things and the playing field is level for everyone.
My 2 pents.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Re:I have the solution (Score:2)
Most end users, including quite a number of home users, rely on either their company IT people, relatives, friends, neighbours, computer shop, etc to set up and maintain their computers. There are probably very few people who actually rely on OEM installs.
Perhaps not a bad idea in the abstract, it just doesn't work in the real world.
Actually having a demarcation between people who use technology and those who maintain & install the same technology works absolutly fine in the "real world". Indeed I can't think of any other example where end users are expected to perform anything other than the most trivial of maintance tasks with any piece of technology invented in the last few thousand years. If people have no problems with professional plumbers, builders, TV engineers, car mechanics, etc. Then why should computers be treated any differently? If Joe Public can understand the idea that if their car needs fixing they take it to a mechanic (they could have a mechanic come to them, but that would cost more money) to get it fixed or they learn to be their own mechanic, etc. Then why should computers be treated any differently? No-one carps on about how cars or televisions should be easily servicable by the unskilled end user, but many people appear to think that a far more complex machine should have this kind of attribute.
I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead though, they put the same amount of pennies into political donations as they do for bug fixes...err wait...do they have a budget for bug fixes?
Re:I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money. (Score:2)
Re:I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money. (Score:4, Funny)
There is no doubt that Bill will try to correct this situation in the next election. However, (arguably) we all know that Bill is not so dense so as to go bankrupt while buying off every state. So, what else could he do? That's right:
However, he will join neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties, because those were not invented by Microsoft. Instead, he'll be the candidate from the Business Software Alliance Party. Their flag will consist of Clippy drawn over the Windows logo on a blue background.
I shudder at the thought of all this.
Re:I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money. (Score:2)
However, he will join neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties, because those were not invented by Microsoft. Instead, he'll be the candidate from the Business Software Alliance Party. Their flag will consist of Clippy drawn over the Windows logo on a blue background.
ROFL!
Re:I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money. (Score:2)
The part that so many people miss when talking about political contributions is that for every politician you can influence with your money there are two or three of his opponents that now see you as a potential enemy. That's why most companies that give money give to both sides. They can't afford to make enemies. Besides, Microsoft isn't the only company with money to burn, and many of Microsoft's competitors are very important to the economies of much larger states than Washington. In the end, its votes that get you elected, and if you aren't pandering to your consituents you are likely to get run out on a rail no matter how much money you spend campaigning.
Microsoft's "take on the world" mentality works against them in this case. Microsoft may be rich and powerful, but they have made a fat pile of enemies, and these enemies are beginning to organize themselves into coalitions, both in the technology world and the political one. It's not uncommon to see Microsoft's competitors rallying around technologies like Java or Linux, and many of the large companies that oppose Microsoft carry their own political supporters.
In short, it would take a lot more than $20 million to pull Microsoft's fat out of the fire.
Re:I bet Microsoft wishes they donated more money. (Score:2)
This is relativly easy in the US where politics at just about every level appears to be a "two horse race". Does the US even have political parties specific to certain regions, states or cities? Any which stand much chance of getting any candidates elected to either state bodies or Congress?
In other countries it can be more difficult because there can be more sides and different political parties may be effective at different levels. So bribing 3 or 4 parties might give you control of national government, but you'd need to bribe 20-30 parties (and independants) to get all government.
MS "Redmondia" (Score:2, Funny)
MS has defined the borders of "Redmondia"
on 100 square miles of what was formerly
contained in the State of Washington and ceceded from the United States.
The State of Washington has accepted an
undisclosed amount to enable Redmondia
to establish a Monarchy within their borders.
Citizenship to the new country will be granted
to all inhibitants of Redmondia and land rights
will be transferred to MS Corp.
"Change to Rules... whenever you appear to be
about to loose... winning is just delaying
any possibility of loosing."
McD
Let him have the nation! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let him have the nation! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Let him have the nation! (Score:2)
As could the rest of the world. Alternativly any nation could ignore Redmondian patents and copyrights on the basis they had no treaty obligation to take any notice of them.
Effectivly Microsoft would immediatly go from being under the protection of the most powerful nation to one of the weakest. Probably get invaded by a military history society or something
All I have to say... (Score:1)
Justice is served motherfucker!
Re:All I have to say... (Score:2)
Governments have a duty not to be manipulated. (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments have a DUTY not to allow themselves to be manipulated.
I notice that it takes a long time for abuses to be recognized, and to be stopped. Societies do not have efficient means for stopping a determined abuser, particularly one that exploits the lack of technical knowledge of its customers.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has been continuing exactly as it did before, testing the limits. Perhaps there should be several new anti-trust and abuse-of-commerce cases.
With Windows XP, Microsoft seems to be trying to blur the distinction between its computers and its customer's computers. Windows XP sometimes resembles a trojan (except that you must pay for it). Numerous operating system programs call Bill:
Governments have a DUTY not to be manipulated. (Score:2)
Governments have a duty to do the right thing. They don't always do it. That doesn't mean it is not worth saying, however.
You said, "I don't suppose you're aware that the bin-Laden family provided the financial backing for George W. Bush's first oil company, did you?"
I'm aware. I wrote a book about these kinds of things. Including the links, it is about 660 pages: What should be the response to violence? [hevanet.com]
What I want to know is, how did my earlier post [slashdot.org] about Microsoft abuses get moderated "Redundant"? I looked, and I didn't see another post remotely like it. Bill, was that you? Did you moderate my comment down?
I'm more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates. (Score:2)
I honestly was not bashing Microsoft. I am more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates. If he were pro-Microsoft, he wouldn't let his company be so abusive. The bad PR is dragging his company down.
Anyhow, at the present time, my comment is moderated, "Troll". Since, to be a troll, it would have to be factually incorrect, it is not a troll. I suppose Bill has been moderating again.
Re:Governments have a DUTY not to be manipulated. (Score:2)
Just because a nation is supposedly democratic does not prevent them being brutal with colonial subjects. Who are typically outside their democratic process anyway. Gandhi had no ability to vote for or against British MPs let alone stand as a candidate in Westminster.
The only way in which being a democracy can prevent a nation acting brutally towards another is if sufficent of that nation's own citizens know what is happening. In the case specifcally of the US two things tend to count against this, activites being covert rather than overt and a large proportion of the US people not even knowing that the rest of the world exists.
yadadada (Score:1)
a) Passing School
b) Getting a job
c) Putting up with the bloody cold.
See I have what could be construed as a relative interest in reality. What do you think will come of the "anti-trust" suit anyways? Suppose you guys break up Microsoft, then you will have to tackle IBM, Cisco, Intel, etc... [e.g. all other big mostly monopolies].
What you will end up with is hurting yourselves. What you guys fail to realize is that real United States citizens actually work at these "evil" companies.
While companies should be kept in check w.r.t their EULA's [e.g. fair use] arbitrarly breaking up companies only hurts yourselves.
Tom
Maybe my grandchildren will see the result of this (Score:1)
Re:Maybe my grandchildren will see the result of t (Score:2)
You can only honestly say that you have no idea where the bar would be, or how that bar would be measured. I believe it would be higher if Microsoft never existed.
Re:Maybe my grandchildren will see the result of t (Score:2, Interesting)
Please name one innovative, creative, "bar raising" product from Microsoft. Show me such a program and I'll show you a program that was developed by anoter company at least one year earlier.
I contend that Microsoft has not raised the bar for consumer computers (other than forcing progress through bloatware that crashes old computers) and that they have never innovated in computer graphics.
only MS innovation i can think of (Score:2)
Re:Maybe my grandchildren will see the result of t (Score:2)
About the only actual Microsoft innovations appear to be along the lines of "egomaniac" naming conventions, e.g. "My Computer" and cartoon style "help". Hardly "bar raising" or even especially worthwhile.
Re:Maybe my grandchildren will see the result of t (Score:2, Insightful)
Max
Just when you think Amendment X is dead ... (Score:2)
2/3rds of the states bother to "show up" and ultimately represent the underlying balance of and right to local judgement. Chalk up another one for freedom, regardless of what you think of this trial in general. I guess the US still has more life to it than I previously thought.
No such domain part deux (Score:2)
www.news.com is not an active site
Is CNet not propogating their DNS records or something? com.com appears to be a travel agency.
The time of evil is finally over. (Score:2)
Bush is against State's Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:1)
Re:Anonymous Coward = .... (Score:1)
My take on the parent post was that it was meant to be clever, bitter, blatant, but slightly unoriginal, sarcasm.
Still nowhere remotely close to the damage caused (Score:2)
YEP (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:2)
That crap about having the net under the control of one company is just bullshit. Companies with no business model were being valued at several billion dollars.
RE: YEP - Efficiency is not good. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:end it (Score:5, Insightful)
> Can't we end this now. Hasn't Mr. Gates suffered enough already?
Microsoft was found to have broken the law. We are now in the penalty phase of the trial. There is no longer any question as to how guilty MS is, only how much they will pay for breaking the law.
Problem is, we can't get Microsoft and their lawyers (both those who are employees of Microsoft and those who supposedly work for the Department of Justice) to clam up and get penalized already. It would really help if the so called "Department of Justice" would quit defending Microsoft and start prosecuting them like they are supposed to be doing. Then we wouldn't have a settlement that MS is using to repeat their illegal activities, and 9 states off on their own because they seem to be the only ones who care about doing their job.
The 25 states will help here, even if they don't formally join in with the nine states. State governments are important, and they have rights, even in this "War on Terror" era. It's high time they stood up and let people know that.
.Net, DRMOS, using the Settlement like a rolled up newspaper to smack their OEMs around... It is plainly clear that Microsoft has not suffered enough, because it obviously has no intention of mending its ways. Until justice is done, until Microsoft mends its ways, until huge corporations respect the law of the land, this isn't over. We have a choice. Either the computer industry becomes vibrant, prosperous, innovative, and free (as in liberty), or we have the Microsoft Millenium. Choose!
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
"Mosura", 1961