MS charges EU antitrust regulators... I mean criminals... with colluding.
DFS
Bobbie
> Of course they did.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11639259/
Yeah, I guess that Microsoft would know all about collusion.
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
Chris H
"In Thursday’s complaint, Microsoft said it believes EU officials had
“inappropriate” contacts with Barrett, which it claimed called into
question the independence of Barrett’s final reports."
Of course MS actually recommended Barrett in the first place :-)
They're like the serial habitual criminal claiming they have been
burgled - I've got no sympathy.
--
C.
billwg
"Chris H" <N...@None.no> wrote in message
news:440a35e4$0$1168$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
product promotions on a lower ring in hell than they seem to place
direct government malfeasance! "MS got away with their violations
because of some form of bribery applied to the Bush Administration and
the courts!", they say, vowing to get MS next time for sure.
Rex Ballard
Microsoft got a "Lucky Break" when Thomas Penfield Jackson decided to
grant an interview with a reporter after turning his final rulings over
to the clerks for final revisions. The Appeals court didn't even
disagree with Judge Jackson's claims that Microsoft's executives were a
bunch of criminals - they just agreed that it was inappropriate for
Judge Jackson to make these statements to a reporter before the final
ruling had been issued formally.
My guess is that Judge Jackson wanted out of this case in the worst
possible way, and this was his best way of doing it and still making a
statement.
The rules of evidence, especially regarding the enforcement of a
ruling, may be very different from the United States. Clearly the EU
is not as willing to "cave in" at the first sign of trouble, and they
aren't willing to back off from a judgement and court order when
Microsoft refuses to comply with the spirit and intent of the ruling.
Still, Microsoft has the best lawyers in the world, and I'm sure that
they will do everything they can to wriggle and weasel clause their way
out of as much of the judgement as they can. And if they can't, they
have billions in reserve cash and can probably pay $2 million/day for a
few years - buy which time they will have toppled all of the leaders
who are backing the EU ruling. Look at the numer of political
turnovers in the last 4 years in Europe, especially Germany. But I'm
sure that is just a coincidence.
Don't worry Bill, you're above the law, and you won't be going to jail.
Rex Ballard
billwg
"Rex Ballard" <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141535936.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
the antitrust regulations because they had used a monopoly in Windows to
leverage a monopoly in browsers, but the appeals court said that Jackson
erred due to a failure of the DOJ or Jackson's findings to even
establish that there was a market for browsers in the legal sense. That
was a freshman kind of error and it makes Jackson look like a dummy.
The DCCCOA also found that Jackson's application of the law regarding
packaging IE with Windows was wrong. He applied a per se test which was
passe, again looking like an oaf. On the test that the smart judges
used, MS was clearly not illegally tying products and so the DOJ and
states all agreed that there was no case. The only affect that
Jackson's violation of the judical ethics standards had on the case was
that Jackson was recused from the remand that Judge Kelly presided over.
>
> The rules of evidence, especially regarding the enforcement of a
> ruling, may be very different from the United States. Clearly the EU
> is not as willing to "cave in" at the first sign of trouble, and they
> aren't willing to back off from a judgement and court order when
> Microsoft refuses to comply with the spirit and intent of the ruling.
>
The only complaint is that the information that MS has released is
insufficient for their competitors to understand, Rex. That may be, a
lot of that stuff is pretty complicated, but that is why it takes
professionals rather than amateurs and academia to develop these product
efficiently. Apparently even the source code is too complicated for
them to understand! LOL!!!
Rick
.. except that the Appeals Court stated microsoft erpeated vilolated
anti-trust law.
> LOL!!!
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LOL!!! LOL!!!LOL!!!
--
Rick
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.05....@nomail.com...
>
> .. except that the Appeals Court stated microsoft erpeated vilolated
> anti-trust law.
>
pap for you chumps! LOL!!! Then they cancelled all of Jackson's
rulings and gave the job to a real judge to clean up.
Rick
You're a liar.
--
Rick
Rex Ballard
his findings of law on 2 out of 5 issues. Furthermare they stated that
not only was Microsoft a monopoly, but they were illegally protecting
that monopoly and illegally extending that monopoly. The remedy was
overturned, but the Appeals court made it very clear that the new
remedy should enforce compliance with THEIR findings. They ruled that
Microsoft should NOT be allowed to protect or extend their current
monopoly.
Ashcroft decided to ignore the court entirely, and went for a minimal
settlement. Judge Kollar-Kotelly framed the settlement specifically to
establish the legal precidents and to limit the damages in the DOJ case
to remedies and damages actually addressed during trial testimony. She
specifically stated that by doing so, all of the others who were
damaged could file their own lawsuits. This left the doors wide open
to numerous lawsuits, most of which Microsoft has settled - and often
for mere "funny money" such as free Windows licenses for machines that
had already been sold with OEM licenses.
There were settelments worth $hundreds of million, sometimes $billions
in "face value" but really only provided political "face saving" for
Republican prosecutors who didn't want to cross George Bush at that
time.
Yes Bill, you have truly proven that you ARE above the law.
Rex Ballard
Erik Funkenbusch
> Actually, they didn't cancel all of Jackon's rulings, they agreed with
> his findings of law on 2 out of 5 issues.
Wow, 40%.
> Furthermare they stated that
> not only was Microsoft a monopoly, but they were illegally protecting
> that monopoly and illegally extending that monopoly.
Wrong. They found that some of Microsoft's actions were illegally
maintaining their monopoly, not extending it. Those actions had long since
been stopped, though.
> The remedy was
> overturned, but the Appeals court made it very clear that the new
> remedy should enforce compliance with THEIR findings. They ruled that
> Microsoft should NOT be allowed to protect or extend their current
> monopoly.
No, Rex. They ruled that Microsoft should not be allowed to *ILLEGALLY*
maintain their monopoly. You can legally protect your monopoly through
things like competing better and providing better products than your
competition.