ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

Careers

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows 7

IE 8

Hardware

Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red)

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Sponsors: SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
cheap websites
Search Engine Optimization
Promotional Pens

Judge Backs All of Microsoft Settlement-Sources

Time: 16:42 EST/21:42 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson

A federal judge on Friday endorsed all of the antitrust settlement that Microsoft Corp. reached with the Justice Department last year, sources familiar with the ruling said. The sources said U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had rejected the alternative demands of nine states opposed to the settlement.

An appeals court in June of 2001 upheld trial court findings that Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows monopoly in personal computer operating systems. There was no immediate word on whether the nine states, which had rejected the settlement of the over four-year-old case as ineffective, would appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's Opinion on U.S. District Court's Website (.pdf file) - Nov. 1, 2002

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 42
Next Page

The time now is 9:35:54 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By kevinu (320 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:44:53 PM

finally!

WooHoo!

#2 By tonymangero (28 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:45:04 PM

Finally. Now let's get on with things. This issue is so tired...

#3 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:50:27 PM

Great!!

Let's just hope the NS States don't appeal.

#4 By mooresa56 (2850 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:50:46 PM

MICROSOFT and consumers WIN!

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/01/technology/microsoft_remedy/index.htm

Eat me McNealy, sodajerk, bleeyp, Linus! Dogpile is waiting, now insert face. Thats right rub your noses all in it.

"The decision eliminates the establishment of a technical committee to assess Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. In its place, a corporate compliance committee -- consisting of Microsoft board members -- will make sure Microsoft lives up to the deal, the judge said. "

WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN

What a great start to a wonderful weekend!

#5 By KnightHawk (284 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:56:26 PM

I knew buying the stock at 49 was a deal.. climb baby climb! should be good for a few points..

#6 By z00ker (313 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:56:50 PM

Congratulations Bill. We all knew you would pull it off! (well, except a few select pundits) :)

Jeff

#7 By TechLarry (3649 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:57:24 PM

#4,

Well, Microsoft wins. The rest we'll just have to wait and see...

TL

#8 By GhostRider (308 Posts) at 11/1/2002 4:57:25 PM

This is good, but I think Microsoft should go to the Supreme Court and get this overturned.

#9 By Realist (137 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:01:58 PM

I'll just say Booooooooooooooooo! That's pretty much the nicest thing I can think of right now.

Section E actually looks interesting, but its just a Red Herring and will be of no use because of the other section which follows.

E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product

And here is the great part which negates it all

"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction"

So basically you can be dam sure MS will use this provision under the guise of "anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems" to block any info which would all competitors to interoperate better with MS.

This entire settlement is a joke and the "punishment" is just a greenlight for MS to continue its monopolistic ways.

#10 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:06:41 PM

"So basically you can be dam sure MS will use this provision under the guise of "anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems" to block any info which would all competitors to interoperate better with MS. "

No more than they do currently. There are many things MS could have left closed and claimed it was for security reasons while complying with the original settlement terms, but they haven't yet abused this ability.

#11 By macrosslover (623 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:14:16 PM

i recall somebody wanting to place a wager on this outcome. while that person will remain nameless....cough cough JERK lol, i think it's good they didn't take the bet. and to think i looked on wininformant and Paul had an article saying most legal experts thought it was going to get overturn. lol shows you what they know. i strongly suspect that it wouldn't get overturned, because i'm no lawyer but i've seen the courts in action and although they only gave her the option of accept, reject, reject with provision that you could approve, courts usually don't reject an agreement between two parties when it's showed the made an earnest attempt to settle their differences out of court.

This post was edited by macrosslover on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 17:15.

#12 By sodajerk (3382 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:26:43 PM

macross, I said it was a gamble and I like to gamble. I also called you all pussies for not taking the bet but bringing up in the first place. So, thanks, you gave me something to enjoy... Now back to reading K-K's opinion.

#13 By JDM NZ (147 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:31:14 PM

I am glad the whole mess has come to this conclusion. However, it is annoying that it took this long and so much money for consumers to be given the basic ability to remove/replace key programs to their specifications and not default MS ones. This will most likely be appealed but since it took the judge so long to come to this decision I doubt an appeal would be sucessful. I hope MS learnt a lesson from this case and does not find itself back in court again and again - for all its money, technical abilites and well . . . everthing else - MS puts it's self in so much trouble for no real reason. The products coming out MS these days - like Media 9 - are brilliant and will be used on merit instead of just default installation in Windows.

This post was edited by JDM NZ on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 17:35.

#14 By mooresa56 (2850 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:52:22 PM

Jerk, stop wasting time reading the opinion. Let me save you some time...

YOU LOSE! CONSUMERS WIN!

This post was edited by mooresa56 on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 17:53.

#15 By JWM (736 Posts) at 11/1/2002 5:57:46 PM

"However, it is annoying that it took this long and so much money for consumers to be given the basic ability to remove/replace key programs to their specifications and not default MS ones."

Nobody wanted this. This does nothing to stop - "Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows monopoly in personal computer operating systems".

Personally for me the consumers don't win until Microsoft is broken into an OS and a Application development company.

#16 By Mr. Dee (3468 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:02:44 PM

You Go Microsoft!!!

That's what jealous companies and states like Sun, Oracle deserve to get :REJECTION.
First of all there was no basis for their accusations. It is up to the consumers whether they want to use Windows or Office. And the consumers have spoken, they prefer to use Windows and Office. They say that Microsoft is choking innovation, I think not, why can't those other competitors think of something that is more enticing? Why would would anyone want Windows to be like Linux, that's crazy. Multiple versions of Windows confusing consumers. Consumers would not know which one to chose causing all sorts of problems in the software. The competitors to Microsoft wanted Microsoft to sell software similar to what Netscape is, crummy!

You go Microsoft and I hope you blast every stinking one of those competitors out of the software Industry with their lame software products, this includes Apple although their products are not lame! But they deserve it too. Go Ms, go MS, go MS, go MS, go MS, go MS!:)

#17 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:07:53 PM

I still question their monopoly. If Jackson hadn't narrowed the field so much, he could have never proven a monopoly. Even in his narrow representation of the market, there is still evidence of a lack of monopoly. Heck, many of the statements in the Findings of Fact basically said MS was on top because users didn't want to switch to other products. That sounds like choice to me.

#18 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:15:34 PM

Not only that, Mr. Dee, they wanted MS to do the job of distributing their products for them. Why couldn't Sun just send out a bunch of CD's like AOL did (what's funny is that they tried to get on the AOL CD and silently install)? Distribution was also the argument that made AOL look stupid (besides other things). Why does AOL need to be on the Windows desktop so badly? Everyone knows who they are already. They have flooded the market with Ads and disks and discs for years (They were also sued for not paying the disk company). Many people think AOL is the internet when that couldn't be further from reality.

This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 18:17.

#19 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:18:41 PM

Damn, I should have taken that bet! :) It does appear I was right that the settlement has been slightly modified as it relates to enforcement.

Sounds good. Microsoft should accept this, and overly comply with it... Their competition is sure to look like whiners and will quickly lose support in the public eye. Not that they have much now, most people have moved past this issue and on to other bigger things(*cough* Enron.

This ought to be good for the markets on monday. Maybe we can start to now see a recovery of the tech market.

#20 By BobSmith (3719 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:21:59 PM

JWM, what you mean to say is that consumers don't win until YOU get what YOU want. There are a good deal of consumers, myself included, that would prefer that nothing happen to Microsoft.

Also, didn't you say just days ago that Microsoft legally obtained their monopoly? If they didn't break the law obtaining it, then it stands to reason that the curbs should be on how they use it and not on destroying it.

#21 By mhfm (194 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:37:36 PM

I think MS should thank Bush and his administration. This settlement would NEVER have been reached under Gore. That's why it's always better to have a Republican in the offfice.

But this settlement is not enough for me, I want to see the conspirators punished.

#22 By JWM (736 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:43:00 PM

Bob, I agree with you. Most consumers probably would prefer nothing happen to Microsoft. I am thinking more about the competition. Plus in the very long run, who knows 20 years, consumers may be better off by having competition. The problem is that the Microsoft beast has already been created and there no way to ween consumers off it. I do remember saying they legally otained their monopoly earlier. I was talking about their Windows OS monopoly (which I'm not completely sure about), not their Application one. Nobody can compete with Microsoft in the Application space if they continue to product the OS and applications for it.

This post was edited by JWM on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 18:47.

#23 By bonoriffic (110 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:44:09 PM

So XP SP1, License 6.0, and a few more API's might get released of the tons already released. The meat of the settlement has already happened? Why do I feel this will somehow still drag on for years to come. AT&T took what, 10 years?

#24 By AWBobStein (943 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:52:06 PM

Microsoft is a good company; unlike some others recently...

#25 By n4cer (2054 Posts) at 11/1/2002 6:53:56 PM

The application one was also legally obtained. Word was created because Wordperfect didn't want to move to Windows. Later, MS made a suite of applications (Office), and sold it for about what single word processors were selling for.

Now you have virtually the same thing happening with things like Star/OpenOffice. The difference is that those products don't measure up in featureset or usability compared to the current market leader. MS engineered their way to the top. Why can't others do the same? If there is a common problem among the competition (Windows), why don't they pool their resources and invest R&D collectively into Linux or some other platform? Why can't they make something new that (through R&D expenditure) they can make as accessible to users as Windows, if not more so?

They can get systems support from Sun, IBM, and the x86 market, device support from Palm and Nokia, common coding platform from Sun (with improvement), easy online with AOL, networking with Novell. What's the problem?

This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 18:56.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 42
Next Page

The time now is 9:35:54 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us