From: Mike '/m' 

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