From: "Robert Comer" 

> Except this was a civil case not a criminal case.

Is it?  It was brought by the DoJ.....

- Bob Comer


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:3e4472e6{at}w3.nls.net...
> "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