Microsoft VP: "Microsoft profits from settlement"

Post #29,205 by Andrew Grygus 2/21/02 10:38:24 AM Reply	Microsoft VP: "Microsoft profits from settlement" Reported in LA Times 21 Feb 02. Microsoft vice president Richard Fade, in disposition, has admitted that the DoJ settlement leaves Microsoft with more control over OEMs than it had before the settlement. Mr. Fade stated,"The net result is positive for Microsoft". He also stated that Microsoft's top 20 customers believe they've been hurt by the settlement. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,208 by ben_tilly 2/21/02 10:51:43 AM Reply	But according to the DoJ that doesn't matter Because, after all, the public is represented by the DoJ, and therefore the opinions of OEMs etc on whether Microsoft has been sufficiently restrained are irrelevant. Cheers, Ben
Post #29,211 by Andrew Grygus 2/21/02 11:00:30 AM Reply	The DoJ doesn't matter A this point the only opinion that matters is Judge CKK. She has been signaling that she is not content, which is a good sign. I do like the conspiracy theory that after 0911 the DoJ made a secret deal with Microsoft to incorporate additional spyware into Windows in return for being let off the hook. It's hard to explain the DoJ's actions any other way. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,212 by warmachine 2/21/02 11:03:34 AM 2/22/02 11:01:18 AM Reply	Surely a punishment has to cause a loss? If it appears that a guilty party will net profit from a punishment, then, by definition, they are not being punished and it must be changed. Otherwise it breaks the principle that justice must be done and be seen to be done. I'm hoping a US lawyer will clarify this. Surely, the judge must automatically block the DoJ settlement? Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal. Edited by warmachine Feb. 22, 2002, 11:01:18 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,277 by marlowe 2/21/02 3:17:30 PM Reply	The victims are restless [link\|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-842162.html\|PC makers up in arms] Excerpt: Gateway and Hewlett-Packard have gone on the record with Microsoft as opposing the new licensing terms, according to Fade's deposition and documents included in the states' filing. Three major issues appear to concern the PC makers: Windows pricing, patent protection, and the lack of flexibility in the new licensing agreements. As part of the Consent Decree, Microsoft must offer the same licensing terms to the top 20 PC makers. Previously, it had negotiated each agreement separately. Negotiating separate deals, however, gave Microsoft the power to reward cooperative PC makers and punish others, according to some witnesses in the trial. IBM, for instance, didn't get a license to bundle Windows 95 until the eve of the release of the OS, according to evidence at the trial. IBM did not want to bundle Microsoft's application packages on some of its PCs. Maintaining consistent contractual terms has been used in other markets to prevent antitrust violations. HP sent a letter to Microsoft specifically expressing concerns over the protection of its patents. The letter asserts that the new licensing terms create a one-way street, allowing Microsoft access to HP patents without paying for them. HP's letter also cites pricing as a sticking point but does not provide details. An e-mail from Gateway's Gui Kahl, director of partner management, says the company is "significantly concerned with the potential implication of some of the proposed terms" in the new licensing agreement. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.

Welcome to IWETHEY!