By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.

I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?

As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?

What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?

If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?

I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?

The case did not show MS hindering at least at that time anyone from putting a browser on the OS.

A judge who talks about a case can be seen as not impartial which can cause all kinds of problems with the judicial process.  So you believing its not a big deal does not mean the judge actions were not a big deal.

We can do if then buts all day long but until there is actually evidence its a waste of time.  I do not live in if then buts.  This is why we have a process to expose such things instead of delving into what ifs.

You still have not established any corruption, all this guessing what could or could be means nothing without actually showing corruption.  If we go down your position where we believe that something could be there without any actual data to support it than we can believe everyone and everything is corrupt.  How can you prove me wrong if I say well if if your actions or non actions are corrupt behind the scenes without proof.  This does not support any real argument, it just throws out unsubstantiated opinion without substance.

I have already stated that no company is a saint, but what I have not stated is that they use sleazy tactics or even tried to insinuate such a position without proof.  I would agree that all business when they gain an advantage will continue to push for that advantage in their market.  That does not mean they need to resort to corrupt tactics to achieve it. My point is that you have not supported your first claim and continue to throw out well what ifs, this is not a solid position to support your previous statements.

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

On June 28, 2001, the Circuit Court overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because Jackson had improperly discussed the case with the news media while it was still in progress, violating the Code of Conduct for American judges.

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact. The Circuit Court adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" due to Jackson's conduct, which was favorable for Microsoft.

The Department of Justice announced on September 6, 2001, that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's decision. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a ruling that accepted most of the proposed DOJ settlement.

Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and stated that if the government later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement as far as 2012, it would not object.

MS only got off initially due to the first judge making a poor and illegal move involving the media, which obviously doesn't change MS past actions leading them to court. MS still ends up guilty after appeal, just with a lesser penalty. MS accepted this, this time.

Convinced yet?