yeah, but...

Post #7,819 by Simon_Jester 9/6/01 12:19:49 PM Reply	yeah, but... Breaking them up creates a world of enforcement problems, since Microsoft has all the respect for the law that the Scientologists do..... Gotta disagree with you (partly - see below) there. The whole point of the break-up idea was that (hopefully) this would've solved the issue. I mean, what else are ya gonna do? Fine 'em? (They've got tons of cash.) Threaten 'em with decrees and judgements? (That's how we got here.) The hope (I think) was that if they broke Microsoft up, the problem would be fixed and that would be the end of that. I don't think it would've fixed the problem, but I think that's what they were thinking. If they're broken up, what does that do to claims against them? Oh, you shouldn't be suing us, you should be suing them. Now, there's still just the one. Less confusions for judges and juries. Now that I agree with and it might be why they let up. It an interesting point. But the other point about the breakup that was it was an important negotiation tactic. For whatever reason, a breakup is being treated as death to the company by some. Fine. So you push for 'death' and then settle for something less (which is what you wanted) later on. What I don't get is why they are 'settling' now. (Unless they think the lawsuits are going to be enough).
Post #7,824 by addison 9/6/01 12:35:05 PM Reply	Think of parole... When someone is out on parole, they're "free" but under restrictions. It doesn't take ANYWHERE NEAR the effort required to convict someone to revoke their parole. That's what I see as a big difference here. Before, they had to be convicted. Well, they have. Now they're paroled... and if they are caught doing anything that they've been convicted for, under conduct remedies, there's no need to have a trial, its a matter of slapping them down, immediately. There's really nowhere for them to appeal to, so they can waste their money on lawyers, and attempt, but I suspect they're only going to get 3 chances at that before the judge starts fining them/making them pay for the government lawyers. :) Threaten 'em with decrees and judgements? (That's how we got here.) Prior to this was a voluntary consent decree, that they government claimed that they had broken. Now they're a convicted monopolist - the bar just lowered a LOT for remedies. Addison
Post #7,830 by mmoffitt 9/6/01 12:47:53 PM Reply	If? "... and if they are caught doing anything that they've been convicted for, under conduct remedies, there's no need to have a trial, its a matter of slapping them down, immediately." Tying is out, apparently. So, there go the claims about the Windows Media Player inclusion in XP, the IM in XP, etc. being an illegal leveraging of the OS monopoly to thwart QuickTime, RealMedia, AOL/IM, etc. And what real penalty has M$ ever suffered? I submit that even under your terms, Microsoft would be able to use its vast stores of $ to drag through the courts until the issue is moot (as it successfully did in running Netscape out of business). It doesn't take much imagination to see what happened to Netscape happening to Real, QTime, game companies for the X-box, etc.
Post #7,839 by addison 9/6/01 1:08:13 PM Reply	Maybe. I don't know what the DoJ/States are thinking, here. Tying is out, apparently. So, there go the claims about the Windows Media Player inclusion in XP, the IM in XP, etc. being an illegal leveraging of the OS monopoly to thwart QuickTime, RealMedia, AOL/IM, etc. Apparently that's tying of the browser. I think they want to reopen the case of the other issues, how that will play, I don't know. I submit that even under your terms, Microsoft would be able to use its vast stores of $ to drag through the courts until the issue is moot (as it successfully did in running Netscape out of business). But its not my terms, there. You've got to have legal standing to press a case. If they're under conduct remedies, and they're found to have violated them - then there's not much they can do about it. There's no epic battle to the Supreme Court, etc.. because the upper courts won't take it. Addison
Post #7,836 by Simon_Jester 9/6/01 1:05:56 PM Reply	Add... you're talking about paroling someone who hasn't been sentenced yet. It's too soon.
Post #7,840 by addison 9/6/01 1:18:59 PM Reply	No. I'm talking about the difference between then and now. Because THEN, after the sentance/conduct remedy - the burden of proof is nowhere as high as it was to GET to this point. The general thought is "look at what it took to get here, its going to be more of the same" - and that's not the case, at least potentially. Because THEN, they've been sentanced. That's the point. Before now, they weren't. Then and now. And Then will be now, soooon. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!