From: "Robert G Lewis" 

True but the case was a civil case see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm

Note I am NOT defending Microsoft's actions and definitely not the
settlement. I think they got off very very light.

Bob Lewis

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3e447a67$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > 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