From: "Robert G Lewis" 

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