From: "Robert Comer" 

> True but the case was a civil case see

No matter...

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

Yes they did.

- Bob Comer


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:3e448412{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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