Post #25,163
1/22/02 4:28:09 PM
|
Netscape sues Microsoft again
[link|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-820227.html|So this suit is, um, different, somehow.]
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON--Netscape Communications, a division of AOL Time Warner, filed suit against Microsoft on Tuesday, claiming that the software giant's business practices have harmed it.
The lawsuit is based on court findings that Microsoft's business practices amid the infamous browser wars of the 1990s violated two sections of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. In April 2000 a federal judge ruled that Microsoft used anticompetitive means to thwart browser Netscape. In June 2001, a panel of seven appellate judges upheld eight separate antitrust violations by Microsoft.
[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.
|
Post #25,165
1/22/02 4:40:40 PM
|
Oh, silly me.
I gather Netscape wasn't a plaintiff in the original suit. Which in itself seems rather odd.
[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.
|
Post #25,166
1/22/02 4:43:41 PM
|
Netscape is the plaintif, not DoJ
And the DoJ (IANAL) was seeking to fix the problem. Any cash would be a fine paid to the Treasury.
Netscape will be seeking (triple) damages, to include restitution and punitive, which would be paid to them.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #25,169
1/22/02 4:58:39 PM
|
This is civil...and made possible by DOJ
They got a conviction...now Netscape can go after them for >real< money.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,200
1/22/02 7:58:02 PM
|
Cool. Who's next?
Be, in selling their assets, retained the right to sue Microsoft for damages. Hopefully that one will be coming up soon. They certainly have a case (prevented from dual booting, etc.).
Now that Microsoft is convicted, and the convictions were upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeals, all that has to be shown is damages. Any damages.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #25,204
1/22/02 8:37:48 PM
1/22/02 9:04:41 PM
|
What hear about the CA class action suit?
Saw that notice some months ago in local paper IIRC.. with the usual, "you don't have to do anything to remain a part of this action".
I'd sorta like My 10-E5 # of Beastly flesh too, for the pain and suffering of intentionally crippled s/ware and for general mopery causing recurrent nausea. One of those Toshiba credit cards at $1K for ~ 1-10 million customers, would be nice.
(But I'd donate that to the Nuke from Orbit Fund.. in a trice.)
PS - Andy, please give a shout here, when you warm up a new screed on aaxnet.com. I realize you have a couple other things to do .. still it's always fun to send someone (back to) aaxnet for a critique on the latest atrocity. I find yours has the proper pH of acidity for being read by the relatively clueless (but displaying at least a little promise..)
|
Post #25,488
1/24/02 1:01:21 PM
|
Et tu, AOL?
[link|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-821834.html|Kettle says pot is black, too]
Excerpt:
Microsoft's Wednesday filing fires a hefty salvo at AOL, alleging that the media giant refused to disclose subpoenaed information, while lobbying the nine litigating states on developing a proposed remedy.
"We filed this motion because AOL repeatedly refused to cooperate, even though the court instructed everyone to do so," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "AOL can't have it both ways. Their uncooperative attitude on document production stands in stark contrast to their active, behind-the-scenes involvement with the non-settling states."
Microsoft also alleges that AOL submitted to the nine non-settling states a 39-page "preferred remedy."
"AOL's proposal bears a striking resemblance to the requested relief that the non-settling States ultimately filed with the Court on December 7, 2001," the brief charges.
AOL spokesman John Buckley said, "We're not going to dignify this with a response."
I say:
A pox on both their houses.
[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.
|
Post #25,624
1/24/02 7:21:54 PM
|
Agreed, a pox on them both.
Who needs either of them? let them duke it out and see who has the best dishonest lawyers?
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
