The US Department of Justice has decided not to seek the breakup of Microsoft, and apparently abandoned its claim that by bundling various applications with Windows, it misused its monopoly power. That's a relief for the Microsoft people worried about the effect of the litigation on the newest version of Windows, and to people buying shares in Microsoft. Not so great news for those who are still struggling to stay out of Microsoft's net. dj tuchler
Hi In the news here in Finland they said, that some US authority is going to try to make Windows-source code public for developers. I didn't really follow the news, so this is heard with "side-ear"... but interesting still. Jaska. Viestissä Torstai 6. Syyskuuta 2001 21:13, Dennis J. Tuchler kirjoitti:
The US Department of Justice has decided not to seek the breakup of Microsoft, and apparently abandoned its claim that by bundling various applications with Windows, it misused its monopoly power. That's a relief for the Microsoft people worried about the effect of the litigation on the newest version of Windows, and to people buying shares in Microsoft. Not so great news for those who are still struggling to stay out of Microsoft's net.
dj tuchler
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 09:33:31PM +0300, Jaakko Tamminen wrote:
Hi
In the news here in Finland they said, that some US authority is going to try to make Windows-source code public for developers. I didn't really follow the news, so this is heard with "side-ear"... but interesting still.
Maybe the so-called Department of Justice should get renamed.. The Department of Obeying Our Political Masters This is a political decision, not a judicial one. Bush and Billy .. what a combo huh ? Cliff
On Thursday 06 September 2001 14:51, Cliff Sarginson wrote: | Maybe the so-called Department of Justice should get renamed.. | The Department of Obeying Our Political Masters | | This is a political decision, not a judicial one. nonsense. a decision to split up microsoft would accomplish nothing. and the bundling case was a very bad one. what no one seems to have noticed is that at the same time justice subpoenaerd *everything* microsoft has done since the court's initial findings. honestly. everybody's reacting to what i and a lot of others have been calling for for years as if it's bad news. -- dep one day, you'll wish it was now. your wish has been granted. don't waste it.
Here here, I agree totally. Breaking up M$ is something that the Redmondians have been prepared for since the notion of "breakup" was first mentioned sometime ago - Don't you thing they've spent a considerable amount of time and energy on a viable contingency? The DOJ, hopefully, understands at least a little about what's going on. The issues as I see it is the tactics M$ uses to lock out competition and re-invent standards that only utlilizes M$ products. If the DOJ gets it on this level then M$ may not be very comfortable at the "settlement" talks. Remember, the issues is to leash M$ not kill them (though I for one wouldn't shed a tear if M$ went the way of the Dodo - which I never thought they would. Breaking up M$ may even be the worst of the alternatives. The real hurts is to open code, access to API's, and the nature of control that M$ uses in their business contracts with their partners, associates, and clients. Cheers, Curtis On Thursday 06 September 2001 02:35 pm, dep wrote:
On Thursday 06 September 2001 14:51, Cliff Sarginson wrote: | Maybe the so-called Department of Justice should get renamed.. | The Department of Obeying Our Political Masters | | This is a political decision, not a judicial one.
nonsense. a decision to split up microsoft would accomplish nothing. and the bundling case was a very bad one. what no one seems to have noticed is that at the same time justice subpoenaerd *everything* microsoft has done since the court's initial findings.
honestly. everybody's reacting to what i and a lot of others have been calling for for years as if it's bad news.
On Thursday 06 September 2001 16:46, Curtis Rey wrote: | Here here, I agree totally. Breaking up M$ is something that the | Redmondians have been prepared for since the notion of "breakup" | was first mentioned sometime ago - Don't you thing they've spent a | considerable amount of time and energy on a viable contingency? | The DOJ, hopefully, understands at least a little about what's | going on. The issues as I see it is the tactics M$ uses to lock | out competition and re-invent standards that only utlilizes M$ | products. If the DOJ gets it on this level then M$ may not be very | comfortable at the "settlement" talks. Remember, the issues is to | leash M$ not kill them (though I for one wouldn't shed a tear if M$ | went the way of the Dodo - which I never thought they would. | Breaking up M$ may even be the worst of the alternatives. The real | hurts is to open code, access to API's, and the nature of control | that M$ uses in their business contracts with their partners, | associates, and clients. entirely right -- address the things that caused judge sporking to refuse to sign the consent decree that reno's justice department cooked up with microsoft in 1994, which allowed things to get this far. a pretty basic document in all of this is here: http://torrent.sj.ca.us/Commentary/sporkin_order.html justice and microsoft appealed and sporkin was overturned, and it was business as usual for microsoft. justice's sudden loss of interest coincided with a meeting between bill gates and bill clinton at the white house in early 1995. -- dep one day, you'll wish it was now. your wish has been granted. don't waste it.
participants (5)
-
Cliff Sarginson -
Curtis Rey -
Dennis J. Tuchler -
dep -
Jaakko Tamminen