Its possible..

Post #17,154 by addison 11/7/01 1:07:04 PM Reply	Its possible.. But its more that I dislike seeing people gratuitiously bashed. And given what you just said... I'd suggest a check on what you're saying, versus the thread.. Its pretty close to being hypocritical. You'll defend against anyone who suggests the Bush Administration had a hand in it, and others will defend against anyone who says they didn't. That's not true. The Bush administration of course had a hand in it. Never said otherwise. I've argued that nothing changed with the election of Bush. Yes, other things changed, the appeals court, supreme court, new judge appointed, 9/11 (or 11/9 for Peter), but the initial post here, will, if you recall, said that the latest DoJ settlement was the result of Bush being elected. It, quite simply, isn't that simple, nor do the facts back that up. Misconstruing my position to defend Bush doesn't help. The settlement is horrible, ludicrous, and ignorant. But its the same sort of stupidity that's dogged this trial. Thus, the evidence that its Bush "selling out" or anything else is refuted by prior acts. Now, what I am worried about is that Microsoft went to the DoJ, and said quietly, Hey, Guys, tell ya what, we'll settle this, work it out quietly afterward, and we'll give you everything you need to crack bad guy's Windows systems and track 'em. That is what worries me. But again, Clinton wasn't a bastion of freedom in the digitial world, and I don't see Gore doing better ..... The number of loopholes in this deal is staggering. There was really just one big loophole in the '95 consent decree. It helps to keep context. While its possible that you would consider that the "first" - the context of "Netscape" should have corrected you to the start of the post-95 CD goings on. (Since Netscape as a threat, as an issue, didn't exist) I was talking about the initial DoJ position in the latest action (which apparently has dropped off the web). The DoJ's initial position on this was to require Microsoft to only include Netscape on the same CD, and they would be happy, Gates told 'em to shove it, etc. Loopholes? Hell, that's all the DoJ wanted. Under Clinton. Remember, this is about "Bush was elected and sold out". My point is that, hey, the administrations might not have anything to do with it. You cannot, however, say that nothing else changed. You're in the wrong thread. This is the "Its Bush's Fault" thread. And you were saying I liked to argue? :) I didn't say nothing else changed. I said the DoJ's been this stupid under prior administrations, and the mere change in administrations (changing the outcome) isn't supported by any real facts. Those would have to show that realistically, Gore's DoJ would have put the screws to Microsoft. Or at least that Clinton's did. You have a point that they have a stronger bargaining position. Absolutely right. But its a minor point in the fact of the rest of the idocies - regardless of the administration. But Microsoft isn't there to bargain in good faith, and the DoJ doesnt' seem to know that - and its not since 1/20 (or 20/1 for Peter) that this occured. So if you want to accuse me of being argumentative, I must ask you to actually read the thread, number one, and number two, at least get what I'm saying in context... Bush's people had a hand in this. But mostly it was the same lawyers who've been making the same underestimates of Microsoft, the whole trial. So its not anymore Bush's fault than Clinton's, thus the whole premise behind this thread has a problem, hence my attempts to point that out. If you want to nitpick and say that sure, something changed in the meantime, sure, you're right (but again, you're calling ME argumentative?), but it doesn't change the main fact that the DoJ's caved on almost every time - and its been the States driving this case. Addison
Post #17,163 by admin 11/7/01 2:02:54 PM Reply	Re: Its possible.. No, I'm not changing the point of the thread. I'm simply pointing out why the arguments you're using to support your point of view are wrong. Which you're conveniently attempting to sidestep now. :-) Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,198 by addison 11/7/01 4:33:25 PM Reply	Er. No. No, I'm not changing the point of the thread. I'm simply pointing out why the arguments you're using to support your point of view are wrong. Er. That's exactly what you did, Scott. You changed it from "Its Because Bush Won" . The DoJ's stance hasn't changed since this whole case started. Its been the point I've made allthroughout. I've shown other settlement attempts that were equally impotent. Thus, its not "just Bush". Yes, the situation is changed, the DoJ does have more ammunition, that has changed. What hasn't changed is Microsoft's willingness to give in. The point (which you claim not to be changing) is that the DoJ is stupider now than under Clinton, or would have been under Gore. Which you're conveniently attempting to sidestep now. :-) Er. By agreeing that there's a point there, but disagreeing that it has anything to do with the main thread? By showing evidence of the same sort of ignorance? Weird sorta sidestep, there. And you say I'm argumentative? The point is, its no more Bush's fault for this excreble settlement than Clinton's, and nothing shows that it would have been different under Gore. Which other people are taking exception to, having "predicted" that since Bush won, Microsoft would get off scott-free. Well, they're certainly capable of making that claim, but its unsupported by any facts or basis, other than their hatred of Bush. That's the point.... Addison
Post #17,218 by admin 11/7/01 5:31:03 PM Reply	Re: Er. No. Sorry, reread, Addison. You're so busy trying to prove/disprove everything that anyone says here that you're not bothering to read. Here's what I responded to: I said that nothing changed. Ergo - Bush bears no EXTRA blame. It wasn't a CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. and Dude, nothing, NOTHING at all CHANGED. ALL I said was that you could NOT say that NOTHING HAD CHANGED. I think I showed that quite well. They have a guilty verdict in two courts now, and a refusal to hear by the SC. That's a big change. End of my point. Make of it what you will, but I'm done. You're a pain in the ass to talk about anything with sometimes because of this kind of behavior. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,223 by addison 11/7/01 6:05:56 PM Reply	Really? Sorry, reread, Addison. You're so busy trying to prove/disprove everything that anyone says here that you're not bothering to read. Really? Ah well, Irony abounds. Here's what I responded to: I said that nothing changed. Ergo - Bush bears no EXTRA blame. It wasn't a CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. and Dude, nothing, NOTHING at all CHANGED. ALL I said was that you could NOT say that NOTHING HAD CHANGED. You're entirely right. Lots of things changed. Seasons changed, we had a terrorist attack. You're right. I was wrong, some things did change. But that was irrelevant to my prior point, and Oh, BTW, it was after the Findings of Fact with the prior post, but what the hey, just Blame Bush. (Which if you're not doing, its a pretty good impression of it). You're a pain in the ass to talk about anything with sometimes because of this kind of behavior. Well, Scott, Pot, Kettle, AND Black. Jump into a thread, nitpick over something (and now at least I understand your nitpick), and when I agree with you on the nit, start insulting. The point I made, that Bush's election didn't demonstrably affect this, still stands unchallenged, but you did score a nit-pick..... but I'm the one that's hard to deal with. Aha. Addison
Post #17,225 by admin 11/7/01 6:24:00 PM Reply	Re: Really? You're right. I was wrong, some things did change. And since up to that point your entire argument was based on the fact that things DIDN'T change (you WERE using capital letters to get that point across, remember? Probably meant you thought it fairly important, non?), I thought it was pretty significant to point that out. But no, Addison has determined to Win At All Costs so now it's a "nitpick". Well, Scott, Pot, Kettle, AND Black. Jump into a thread, nitpick over something (and now at least I understand your nitpick), and when I agree with you on the nit, start insulting. No, Addison, what you're seeing here are a few gentle (yes, gentle, believe it or not) suggestions from someone who thought he was a friend of yours, pointing out something that you don't even seem to be aware you're doing. I've seen you do this time and time again, turn on someone who's a friend with some pretty harsh "my logic shall defeat you" vitriol. It's not winning you any friends, buddy, and I thought you might like to know. But hey, if that's insulting you then I'll guess I'll just take my lumps and shaddup. Or maybe I'll just stop trying, and maybe I'll just stop considering you a friend, 'cause I'm sick of your behavior. As I said, I'm done. Last word is yours for the taking, etc. etc. etc. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,232 by pwhysall 11/7/01 7:01:00 PM Reply	Oi. You two. Flame Off forum. Now. Smokum peace pipe. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #17,167 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 2:30:05 PM Reply	There may be one huge difference between then and now.... Under Clinton...the DOJ and Microsoft weren't going to settle unless the states agreed. Under Bush...(according to the rumors I'm hearing), the DOJ and Microsoft regardless of whether or not the states agreed. That's a huge difference.
Post #17,204 by addison 11/7/01 4:50:28 PM Reply	If that's true, And I'm not aware of that, that is a difference, you're possibly right. I don't know if they could seperate the case, but in the past, it wasn't seperated. So if the DoJ does, you're right, that's a change (though we don't know what Gore's boys would have done, given the OTHER changes (And it was essentally an either/or, with Bush or Gore)), but I think its safe to blame Bush with some certainty, given that. Addison
Post #17,248 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 7:58:00 PM 11/7/01 7:58:59 PM Reply	But we do know... So if the DoJ does, you're right, that's a change (though we don't know what Gore's boys would have done, given the OTHER changes (And it was essentally an either/or, with Bush or Gore)), but I think its safe to blame Bush with some certainty, given that. that Clinton didn't. Furthermore, you're forgetting that Bush selects his cabinet. John Ashcroft was personally selected by Bush...if fact they had to fight to get him in. John Ashcroft has receive cash money from Microsoft. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Microsoft founder Bill Gates hailed the settlement, saying it would help the sagging economy. "This settlement is the right result for consumers and businesses, the right result for government and the right result for the economy," said Ashcroft, adding that the new restrictions would help independent software makers be competitive with Microsoft. [...] A judge originally agreed to do that, but the breakup was reversed by a federal appeals court this summer. The Bush administration took the breakup off the table before starting negotiations this fall. President Bush has long urged a settlement in the case but the White House remained on the sidelines during the final days of negotiations led by Justice Department antitrust chief Charles James. [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/11/02/microsoft.agreement.ap/index.html\| source ] Compare this to Janet Reno's comments on the J. Jackson's ruling. ATTY GEN. RENO: Good afternoon. As you know, the court has just announced its remedy in the Microsoft case. I'm pleased that the court has ordered a strong, effective remedy to address the serious antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed. The court's remedy strikes the right balance. The structural remedy will stimulate competition that will have a lasting impact on this important industry, and the interim conduct relief will ensure that Microsoft cannot break the law while the structural provisions are taking effect. [...] The remedy the court ordered -- breaking Microsoft into an operating systems company and an applications company -- is fair, and it's measured. Indeed, it directly flows from the extensive findings and legal conclusions that the courts had previously entered. That's what the law requires, and that's what Judge Jackson did. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2000/060700microsoftcom.htm\| source ] BTW: You're right, we don't know what Gore might have done. But it ISN'T the point. We KNOW what Bush is doing. Edited by Simon_Jester Nov. 7, 2001, 07:58:59 PM EST Expand All History
Post #17,338 by Another Scott 11/8/01 12:56:44 PM Reply	More quotes. Ashcroft and James made me cringe when I heard them at the press conference announcing the settlement. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2001/9463.htm\|Here] at the US DOJ. "This settlement will promote innovation, give consumers more choices, and provide the computer industry as a whole with more certainty in the marketplace," said Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. "The goals of the government were to obtain relief that stops Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore competition in the software market\ufffdwe have achieved those goals." Innovation made me cringe. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/1102newsconference.htm\|Here] is a transcript of the announcement. Maybe it's an attempt to turn MS's language against it, but it still raised red flags with me. I doubt that Ashcroft had much to do with the agreement. I expect he was pretty far removed from it - he's tied up with other things now. But the language seems consistent with Ashcroft's views, as experessed in [link\|http://www.stauffercom.com/letter3.html\|this] 1998 letter. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!