Post #4,910
8/13/01 4:24:30 PM
|
OK, maybe a simple question....but...
One argument says that MS appealed to the USSC in order to delay the courts long enough to get WinXP out the door. I'm curious why this is allowed. In a normal criminal prosecution. Once you are found guilty, you are locked up. Even during appeals (what MS is doing now) or awaiting sentancing (also what MS is currently in the position of), once you are found guilty, they lock you up during the process. Even if you are only charged with a crime, if the nature of the crime and the judgement of the court is that you may be a risk to commit further crimes, they will deny bail.
So why is MS allowed to conduct business as usual while they await sentancing and appeal? They've already been found guilty; there should be limitations on the movements on activities *now* while the process is ongoing
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #4,911
8/13/01 4:36:45 PM
|
For one thing...
the sentencing by Judge Jackson, i.e. break up, didn't follow procedure to determine "the remedy" and was in effect voided. So they are guilty but the remedy has not been determined. Until the remedy is determined, they can do what they want, knowing they are being watched.
Of course, INAL.
Alex
Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not certain about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
|
Post #4,913
8/13/01 4:48:03 PM
|
Yabut....
"rememdy" notwithstanding (which to me is just a nice way of saying "sentancing".. "this is your punishment for being bad") they've still been convicted.
If I was convicted of murder, I don't think they'd let me out of jail while they lawyers were discussing "remedies" and my lawyer(s) was appealing the case. Not with just a "we'll be watching you, so don't kill anyone else while we discuss what to do to you".
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #4,918
8/13/01 5:07:20 PM
|
Civil vs. Criminal.
MS was tried for "civil" violations of the law, not "criminal". MS's officers weren't in danger of going to jail, large fines, etc. In civil cases, different rules apply.
[link|http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm|This] site summarizes the differences between civil and criminal trials. It seems pretty good, but IANAL.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #4,923
8/13/01 5:35:01 PM
|
It's different
What are you going to have Microsoft doing? The "sentence" was thrown out for now; without knowing what the remedy is, you can't do anything to Microsoft.
With criminals, you can lock them up and (if needed) have them serve their time until the *length* of the sentence is determined. There's no doubt about the penalty, the only question is how long.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #4,917
8/13/01 5:01:29 PM
|
Misconception.
Even if you are only charged with a crime, if the nature of the crime and the judgement of the court is that you may be a risk to commit further crimes, they will deny bail.
That depends on a lot. Many times you might note - people skip town AFTER their conviction, as they appeal. Because they are not always remanded into custody. (basically, if you have money (and who's got more than M$?) you stay out on bail til the 7 Supremes say "Dude, you're guilty as hell").
So its not unheard of for these things to drag out - especially when the rememdy is so dramatic.
So why is MS allowed to conduct business as usual while they await sentancing and appeal? They've already been found guilty; there should be limitations on the movements on activities *now* while the process is ongoing
Yannow.
That's an INCREDIBLY good question. I wish I knew. I'd like to see the DoJ and states start filing injunctions while awaiting other activities.
(Probably the sides that don't want to make TOO many waves, or make things "unamenable to settlement" are keeping that from happening)
Addison
|
Post #4,924
8/13/01 5:44:55 PM
|
Or maybe not injuncitons.
"Your Honor, Microsoft, following unanimous confirmation of their conviction by the Court of Appeals, while not under court ordered restriction, went out and did (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D . . . Exhibit BA).
Your Honor, given this evidence, some pretty stringent, enforcable and verifiable restrictions are called for. Microsoft has adequately demonstrated how they will behave under any non-structural remedy."
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #4,994
8/13/01 11:41:04 PM
|
wasnt the original trial vs win 95?
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #5,030
8/14/01 11:12:07 AM
|
First one never went to trial
But yes, that is what the original consent agreement resulted from.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
