[Am-info] Re: Netscape v. MS

[John Poltorak]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:04:30PM -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
> "T.Guilbert" wrote:
> > 
> > In a message dated 2002 January 24 (Thursday), timestamp 11:15 AM,
> >    on the topic [Am-info] Re: Netscape v. MS,
> >    sturde@az.com wrote:
> > 
> > "|>Netscape is reviving government claims, rejected last year by the U.S.
> > "|>Court of Appeals, that Microsoft illegally tied its browser to the
> > "|>operating system and tried to monopolize the browser market.
> > 
> > IIRC, the Court of Appeals did not reject the tying argument as a
> > matter of law; the DoJ decided, however, not to correct the defects in
> > the tying count that Judge Jackson identified in his opinion, so the
> > matter was not before the court on appeal.  IOW, the matter is not res
> > judicata.
> 
> The tying issue was before the appeals court, and they remanded it back to
> district court for further consideration, but the DOJ agreed to drop the
> issue completely in order to get MS to agree to a settlement.

And then they dropped all the other issues as well...

In the end they simply settled to let Microsoft carry on as if the last 
three years never happened.

What a complete waste of time we have endured!

At least the Findings of Fact stand. It's a shame the press never 
attempted to publicise those finding, otherwise there would have been an 
outrage that a single company can do business as it pleases closing down 
every competitor that stands in its way until it has no competitors.
Now it has the government's blessing to just leverage its monopoly in one 
market to get a foothold into other markets and do the same there.

Did anyone ever find out just how big a slush fund Microsoft used in 
getting Dubya elected?

Just wondered if Microsoft has the same auditors as Enron...


 
> -- 
> Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
> 
> I think I think; therefore, I think I am.  -Ambrose Bierce


-- 
John