Microsoft-U.S. Settlement Statement (Microsoft Loses Court Case!)

Yahoo/AP ^ | Friday November 2 10:27 AM ET | The Associated Press,

[Bush2000]

Why am I not surprised that Microsoft bashers who laud this settlement fail to discuss why the DOJ's original demands with regards to the browser are nowehere to be seen in this settlement?

Because their arguments then were flawed three years ago just as they are now.

Have Microsoft bashers seen the light, and realized that these original demands of the DOJ were outlandish? Or are they just trying to convince themselves that they were right all along, regardless of how inconsistent the demands and results attained by the DOJ are?

It's the latter. They didn't mind wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for branding Microsoft a monopolist. So, in return, they high-five each other, pat each other on the back, and celebrate the terms that the wrung from Microsoft, forgetting all the time that the same terms were on the table from Microsoft over three years ago. But let's face it: These clowns are like LBJ in Vietnam. They couldn't pull out gracefully. Now, anything short of utter embarrassment is a victory for them.

[hocndoc]

While simultaneously complaining about their rights to life, liberty and property they also complain about MS. *and* these guys are often the first to fuss and fume that the hardware failed to properly incorporate their latest plug and play purchase (or steal).

Wonder why your software or computer costs so much and didn't function as smoothly as you wanted? It couldn't have any thing to do with government regulatory interference, right? Well:

I can't buy tetanus shots or steroids for injection since the federal tightening on production regulations.
I can't afford to do labs or x-rays in my office, because I would have to hire an entire department for each, have outside verification of my techniques and protocols, and pay thousands of dollars to CLIA each year for the privilege.
I have to charge and treat all patients (indigent and weathy, drug seeker or cancer patient) the same to prevent "fraudandabuse" charges from federal and state regulatory agencies (including the FBI).
I can't even promise you privacy in my office, if any agent of the Secretary of Health and Human Services demands to see your records.

It's all the same disease, in my opinion.

(please don't tell any lawyers that I'm diagnosing without full informed consent)

[AndyJackson]

Whose principle would that be? Yours?

I know that you MS techies cannot read complete sentences written in English, but you might try, for a start, my post #194 above. That is the law. What part of NO COMBINATION in restraint of trade or commerce don't you understand.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I gave in a long time ago and use MS products in the course of my daily life because they are standard and I don't have the professional time to waste on alternatives even if better and free. I do have a dog in the anti-trust fight on several fronts - and so do you my friend unless you are one of Bill's Billionair Babies.

It is a pity that we don't teach American history anymore because you might have learned why we do have antitrust laws and you might have learned about the threat to an economy and poersonal rights and freedoms, including the property rights of others that unrestrained predatory monopolies can do to people. As we discovered, if you allow unregulated monopolies you might as well tear up the Constitution and throw it away because none of your rights are meaningful.

[AndyJackson]

Many of our anti-trust laws are anti-capitalist.

No - they are anti- predatory monolopolistic capital. My family runs a very successful small business. We can compete with anyone just fine in the market. We would be out of business in a week if there were a MS in our field who were allowed to do what MS has done or what Rockefeller did or a whole host of monopolists in the era leading up to the Clayton act and Sherman act.

[secondamendmentkid]

"A contract require two parties. Why do the other parties sign these contracts if they are so bad. Are they morons?"

Rodney, of all people, you should be most familiar with duress. Didn't getting your head bashed in teach you anything?

[secondamendmentkid]

Andy, the pigs are squealing. The Gates of Hell got CONVICTED (can't blame this one on the Dimcraps). Bush2000 couldn't rationalize himself out of a paper bag, but he keeps trying. Plus,he is one of the lapdogs over at the Gates of Hell. Just send him a crying towel. It is sad that the boy spends his whole computer life trying to defend the indefensible. Dominic kicks his can on a regular basis on these threads.

[Doohickey]

You could switch to that company that has a monopoly on the Motorola chipset...

Macintosh

[AndyJackson]

Are you a MS shill or just honestly a teenager? Other than telling me I am screwed up I would appreciate it if you could, more articulately tell me where you believe I am wrong, so we can debate it.

It was politics - no question - but it was not just politics. The AG's of many states did not join because of politics, but because they or companies in their states were injured by MS's behavior.

Personally, I despise MS products every way, every day. I would use a Unix based (i.e. Linux) OS any day, but I have other, and more important ways, to spend my time than fixing my computer and try to maintain compatibility with what most people are using. So I live with MS products, even though the OS absolutely (put in your favorite juvinile epithets and 4 letter words here). Windoze 98 I have to reboot about 4 times a day because the OS is too stupid to kill off all of the orphaned processes that hog memory and CPU cyles when it shuts down a program. Windoze 2000 unprofessional I have to reboot once a day for about the same reasons - though it at least gives me some control over that - though hitting the panic button is usually quicker than going down the list of processes to figure out which belonged to what program. Actually Windows 95 is more stable than any of these - but I have to have - so HERR OBERFUHRER Bill tells me - all the bells and whistles that I never wanted.

[AndyJackson]

I invited you to a debate and you serve up this infantile drivel? Your response is exactly that of a predatory monopolist - which the appeals court agreed that MS was guilty of based on the facts presented.

[usconservative]

Microsoft is officially a criminal, anti-capitalist 'looter' corp.

Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. I suspect anyone who makes more money than you, is more successful than you, has better ideas than you, works harder than you is a "looter."

Pity. Jealousy in America rears its ugly head. Government sanctioned, public sponsored punishment of successful companies is at the heart of SOCIALISM.

Glad to see your a subscriber. (/sarcasm)

BTW: who's operating system are you using to surf Free Republic?

[usconservative]

Rodney, of all people, you should be most familiar with duress. Didn't getting your head bashed in teach you anything?

ROFLMAO! There went my morning coffee...all over the monitor!

[Bush2000]

Listen, Transmeta's locker room talc boy, if this is how Microsoft "loses", I wish it would lose a lot more. Examine the facts, you troll:

1. Company remains intact.
2. Browser remains in OS.
3. Microsoft retains future ability to integrate middleware.
4. Microsoft ships Windows XP w/integrated Messenger, WMP, etc.
5. Microsoft still retains so-called Windows "monopoly".
6. Microsoft has a $50B war chest.
7. Microsoft continues to post profit while its rivals post losses.
8. Microsoft will soon be officially releasing .NET to deveolopers (it has been available in beta form for over a year).
9. The DOJ has essentially abandoned any ridiculous settlement requirements posed during the Clinton administration such as making the Windows source public domain (as an "essential utility") or shipping Netscape Navigator with Windows.

If anyone has lost, it's your side. But look on the bright side. You are so used to losing that ... what's one more loss among many, huh?!?

[Bush2000]

That is the law. What part of NO COMBINATION in restraint of trade or commerce don't you understand.

Your consideration of what qualifies as "restraint of trade" is so broad that Microsoft could not help but violate it, troll. Any market share or distribution channels that it takes away from rivals could be called restraint of trade in your world; fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. There was no proof that Microsoft explicitly sought to eliminate its rivals from the marketplace. There is a big difference between gaining marketshare and destroying your rivals. Read the Findings of Fact and the Ruling again.

[AndyJackson]

Does it bother your sense of self-esteem that calling me a troll is the most powerful intellectual argument you can muster on your side?

The courts findings of fact are rather lengthy. I did read through it. Your characterization of the findings are a swindle. The findings very much controvert your claims about lack of anti-competitive behavior. In fact it is a catalog full of evidence supporting just that conclusion-which may be just exactly why the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

[zeromus]

On the contrary, you're the one with twisted logic by implying that the choices sacrificed are of the same sort as the choices gained. They are not; they are different. Microsoft eliminated choices in some things to allow more choices in others.