"On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously affirmed portions of the district court's finding and conclusion that >>Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act<<."
The court found that Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by imposing license restrictions on computer makers that forced them to install the company's Internet Explorer browser and exclude rival Netscape's Navigator browser.
It found similar agreements with Internet providers like America Online had also violated Section 2. And the court concluded that Microsoft had violated Section 2 by threatening Apple Computer that it would cancel work on a suite of Office applications for Apple's own operating system unless Apple made greater use of the Microsoft browser.
Finally, the court said that Microsoft had violated Section 2 by threatening Intel by refusing to deliver Intel technologies bundled with the Windows operating system. At the time, Intel was developing computer technology based on the Java operating system, which was viewed as a potential competitor to Microsoft Windows.
� 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. � 2
Monopolizing trade a >>felony<<; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a >>felony.<<
>got a 486
I guess this would explain why Wally never reads anything. On his 486 with a 33.6 dial-up connection, it would take 25 minutes to load most of the articles we point him to. He always has to wing it, pretending to read them and comment in return because there's no way he could keep up with the conversation otherwise.
He is destined to infest his basement computer room for the rest of his life and post anti MSFT drivel 24/7.
But what else can you do if you got a 486 and weigh 385 lbs and cant get thru the door anymore
See? this is my reality, where because I have to post from the institutional library (where they make sure I get my "happy" pills, I can "project" that someone else posts from a basement also. And because my "happy" pills have me putting on weight, I can "project" that someone else is HUGE (like me!)
Isn't wally world grand! No reality to interfere with my fiction!
Welcome folks to the place I call my world. Where projection (oops big word) is the way of life.
Just because I was fired from my sanitary engineering position (janitor for all you softies), means that I can "project" others as being fired from there positions, even if I have nothing to suggest that they even worked for the company in question.
But hey, truth isn't allowed in wally_world, so it really doesn't matter!
Msft_must_die would like you to think that his pet phrase, "Convicted Corporate Felon" was used by everyone, but a Google search on "'Convicted Corporate Felon' & Microsoft" brings up exactly 3 unique hits.
Think about that? Millions of pages out there on the web about Microsoft and only 3 of them contain your pet phrase "Convicted Corporate Felon".
1 being a single Tunney Act letter out of 30,000
1 being a one line comment on some Mac website
1 being a post to the "Appraising Microsoft" discussion list
Contrary to your insistance that this is a very common phrase when referring to Microsoft, it's actually exceedingly rare. Per the Google search, it would seem just 3 other people besides you use that phrase. Or maybe less than 3, for all we know those 3 page hits are all by the same guy. So maybe it's just you and this Jones guy who use that phrase. It would really seem to suggest that most people don't consider Microsoft a convicted corporate felon. You are in a very small minority on this issue.
Finally, Msft_must_die, if you aren't friends with the guy who wrote this Tunney Act letter, you should be. You guys are so alike, you'd no doubt become fast friends.
From: Matthew Jones
Date: 1/13/02 1:56pm
Subject: Comments on the settlement between the USDOJ and Microsoft
I am writing to you to state my disappointment at the proposed settlement with Microsoft in the antitrust case. I cannot see anyway that this settlement punishes the convicted corporate felon Microsoft...
<continued at the above link>
Does it really matter if one person is the only one using the phrase? If it is the TRUTH, does it really matter who is saying it?
Microsoft was CONVICTED in a court in France of SOFTWARE PIRACY! And is therefore a CONVICTED CORPORATE FELON in France.
Microsoft was CONVICTED in Federal court of Monopoly abuse which is defined as a felony. That conviction was upheld by the FULL appeals court. That conviction appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.
Attacking the person bearing the message does not eliminate the message!
Very good, "Any Person" who conspires....etc.
A "Person" does not a Corporation Make. Only a "person" can be found guilty of a FELON. Not a Corporation.
Trying to use one product to enforce someone to buy another of YOUR products, is not allowed.
Bingo, pay your fine, go on with life. we all have fines in Life.
>>>A "Person" does not a Corporation Make. Only a "person" can be found guilty of a FELON. Not a Corporation.<<<
actually, i don't think you're correct on this. a corp is legally speaking a person, i think. or very close to it.
too lazy to look it up now, but i'm pretty sure you're mostly wrong on that one, within us law.