From: Mike '/m' 


The Sherman Act does not make the distinction when it specifies that the
violation is a felony.

  /m

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:08:54 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"
 wrote:

>Except this was a civil case not a criminal case.
>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:qtn84v43so3u3kdhphqpmlpborp4pr5nta{at}4ax.com...
>> Google is your friend.
>>
>> Microsoft was found, among other things, guilty of violating section 2 of
>> the Sherman Anti-trust Act.  Indeed, the portion of the decison that I
>> quoted was one of the areas where Microsoft was found guilty of violating
>> section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Another area involved
>Microsoft's
>> behaviour in the java arena.
>>
>>
>> Look here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm  and read
>> the part that says:
>>
>> "Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
>> 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 $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other
>> person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both
>> said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think Microsoft got off easy.
>>
>>
>> But all this *does* beg the questions: how many corporations are allowed
>to
>> do business with convicted felons?   How many governments are allowed to
>do
>> business with convicted felons?  Maybe there is more to the move towards
>> Open Source than just governments and people who are looking for reliable
>> software.....
>>
>>
>>   /m
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:12:28 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Microsoft was found to have abused their monopoly position, Unless I'm
>sadly
>> >mistaken this is not a criminal act, therefore not a felony.
>> >
>> >What MS did and does is bad enough. By posting incorrect inflated claims
>all
>> >you do is lose credibility and give support to MS. Which I
don't think is
>> >what you intend.
>> >
>> >Bob Lewis
>> >
>> >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>> >news:hoh84v891liv7sfkfgc0gfb70it0gg8ka3{at}4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you or I think does not matter.
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft was convicted of committing a felony.   Neither
your nor my
>> >> opinion on it will change the decision.  So deal with it.
>> >>
>> >>  /m
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:28:43 -0000, "Paul
Ranson" 
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Uninteresting evidence that the judges are dim. And the lawyers
>arguing
>> >the
>> >> >case are dimmer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Does your Court of Appeals really think that it's
inappropriate for an
>OS
>> >to
>> >> >be able to render HTML? That's the implication from
your quote. Given
>> >that
>> >> >every other desktop OS is integrating browser
technology the argument
>is
>> >> >surely moot.
>> >> >
>> >> >(The last sentence you quote is gibberish. I'm not
addressing that.)
>> >> >
>> >> >Paul
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>> >> >news:t8u74vgc34t7b0b3cbovugjlijitsgkblo{at}4ax.com...
>> >> >> Some interesting words from the decision of the
Court of Appeals:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ====
>> >> >> ... Although Microsoft does make some claims
regarding the benefits
>of
>> >> >> integrating the browser and the operating
system, it neither
>specifies
>> >nor
>> >> >> substantiates those claims.  Nor does it argue
that excluding IE
>from
>> >the
>> >> >> Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code
achieves any
>> >integrative
>> >> >> benefit.  Plaintiffs plainly made out a prima
facie case of harm to
>> >> >> competition in the operating system market by
demonstrating that
>> >> >> Microsoft's actions increased its browser usage share ....
>> >> >> ====
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  /m
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4