[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
More on MS case
Subject: Re: Microsoft contempt charge
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: gordoni@base.com (Gordon Irlam)
To: Multiple recipients of list <upd-discuss@essential.org>
Below would appear to be the relevant section of the 1995 consent
decree which Microsoft is charged with having violated.
gordoni
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases3/micros0/0047.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-1564 (SS)
FINAL JUDGMENT
.. it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
DEFINITIONS
(A) "Covered Product(s)" means the binary code of (1) MS-DOS 6.22,
(2) Microsoft Windows 3.11, (3) Windows for Workgroups 3.11,
(4) predecessor versions of the aforementioned products, (5)
the product currently code-named "Chicago," and (6) successor
versions of or replacement products marketed as replacements
for the aforementioned products, ... The term "Covered
Products" shall not ... apply to Windows NT Workstation and
its successor versions, or Windows NT Advanced Server.
PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Microsoft is enjoined and restrained as follows:
...
(E) Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which
the
terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned
upon:
(1) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating
System Software product or other product (provided,
however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be
construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated
products); or
(2) the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing
any non-Microsoft product.
--
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org
voice 202.387.8030 | fax 202.234.5176 | love@cptech.org