toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

DOJ will not pursue MS break-up

updated 10:45 am EDT, Thu September 6, 2001

The Justice Department has released a statement saying that it will not pursue a break-up of Microsoft as a remedy to the company's on-going anti-trust legal proceedings. The Department will instead form a solution based on the conduct-related provisions of the Final Judgment previously ordered in the case.

by MacNN Staff

(37)

TAGS :

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 10:47am | report spam | close Reply | delete
GOD BLESS USA

Where people and corporations found totally guilty, can, with enough money, get away from it scott free.

Well done lads

sigh

Charles A
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

09/06, 11:02am | report spam | close Reply |
failed before..

So conduct-related measures were broken by MS before. And now they can just carry on and ignore them again.

Slashdot must be on fire. This is pathetic. Anyway, what does the judge say? I thought it was up to hizzoner to decide what happens, not for Justice to say what it wants. And isn't anyone asking the victims? I'm using Win$%^^^ now and believe me, it hurts.

Joined:

0

09/06, 11:19am | report spam | close Reply | delete
That's only HALF OF IT

... @ slashdot ...

"The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by President Bush to cease its drive to break up Microsoft"

F$#% you BUSH! F#$% you! I knew this would happen if this pumpkin head got elected.

babble
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2000

0

09/06, 11:27am | report spam | close Reply |
...

US laws are such a joke. :-(

beno
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2003

0

09/06, 11:29am | report spam | close Reply |
it's ok, baby

i think MS will have enough problems, losing one of their biggest customers (compaq), losing their grip on the market and PC's in general losing their appeal.

already they have to come up with these hopelessly intrusive ways of forcing everyone to pay them more money.

anyway, who cares what happens to them or their customers?

presearch
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 11:34am | report spam | close Reply |
windowsxp.gov

No doubt when the various gov entities were briefed on M$ plans for the massive invasions of privacy made possible with XP/passport/.net, it was a done deal.

"Really? You can do that? And give us a direct line into your databases? This will give us unprecidented possibilities for control of the unwashed masses! This is incredible!"

Microsoft - Official Supplier to Big Brother (tm)

--

morgan
Forum Regular

Joined: Mar 2001

0

09/06, 11:50am | report spam | close Reply |
Buck Fush

that says it all. He's such a complete idiot, nothing but a manipulated puppet. What a moron, in so many ways, this is really just icing on the cake, since so many of his other terrible decisions will have greater impacts on our lives than the breakup of microsoft.

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 11:58am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Figures

I am not surprised, very disappointed, but not surprised. It's all about the money. Now that the main treat of a break-up has be averted, M$ can now focus on dealing with the very real threat of Mac OSX, and Unix cutting into it's "Windows Technology". Time to start putting Mac Office users behind the curve. Maybe, they have learned from this whole experience, sorry, just blacked out there for a second. In their minds, I am sure they just see it as being able to get away with one more thing. The only superpowers left are maybe China and M$.

blargablarg

Joined:

0

09/06, 12:02pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Below...

No comments available for "MacNN reader Josh Heyer reports the Warner Bros. Store in his home-town in San Diego had disappeared. "In its place was a large, multicolored barrier covering the opening to the store. The barrier didn't say anything on it except "Opening Fall 2001". Oh yeah; THERE WERE APPLE LOGOS COVERING THE BARRIER..." But...

First off, WB shut down all the WB stores. This should come as no surprise that the store "disappeared."

Secondly, you really don't need to capitalize and quote your sources exactly, don't you think? Perhaps you could've paraphrased to spare the SHOUTING and such?

Jeeez. Over the hill.

renatomac

Joined:

0

09/06, 12:09pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
no one elected him

Excuse me but no one elected the "PumpkinHead-In-Chief". He was selected by 5 members of the Supreme Court, who all should be impeached and convicted of treason and subverting the Constitution.

What else should we expect from a guy who was not elected by the people and therefore is not answerable to them? I hope all of you who voted for Duh-buh-ya remember this in 2004.

TheAdmiral
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2000

0

09/06, 12:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
Slashdot=c*** journalism

I can't believe some of you people are relying on Slashdot for POLITICAL information.

I have checked the lead stories on CNN.com, ABCNews.com, FOXNews.com, and CBSNews.com. President Bush is NOT EVEN NAMED in ANY of them! Slashdot accuses the President of being the one who ordered the DoJ to stop pursuing the breakup. They are bullshitting all of us. Even the text of the DoJ announcement itself says nothing that points the finger at Bush. Read it here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02469.html

Don't get me wrong, I'm as upset about this recent development as all of you... but don't start blaming the President just because you already have a certain bias against him. Get civilized, get educated, and do some research before shooting your mouth off on an otherwise undocumented point.

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 12:49pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Let's think...

Okay, let's think about this from a rights/freedom standpoint considering MANY points:

First, MS OWNS the Windows OS--like it or not! It's theirs. To "first order," no one else has a right to it--to use it, to change it, etc. The same is true of IE. From that perspective, if they want to put IE into Windows and charge $500 for it or give it away--in any case consumers can (again, to first order) freely choose to go elsewhere if they don't like it. MIGHT IT CAUSE HARDSHIP FOR THEM TO STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS? Yes, it might, but how much hardship does it have to cause before MS looses it's rights to do what it wants with what it owns?

Second, however, when one entity has a powerful position allowing them to make a choice PRIMARILY MEANT to inflict hardship on others if they do not follow the will of that entity, then they are indeed using their freedom to coerce the freedom of others. That's a problem, and the freedom's of the entity can be justly curtailed to stop them.

I hold that individual consumers should not have been considered the major concern here--I am a consumer, and I use my freedom to choose a Mac. MS effects on me are thus minimized because as an individual I have the freedom to choose with less effects on me personally. Another business (e.g. a PC manufacturer), however, could easily be put out of business if it choose something other than MS windows these days. Thus, MS can coerce them even more than individual consumers.

(Continued on nex message)

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 12:50pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
continued

(Continued from last message)

In the end, however, two facts remain about this case that I must consider: MS might have actually produced a better overall product for their consumers by integrating MS and IE. The Internet is now so integral to personal computers in many ways, and MS wanting to make their OS more directly connected to it shouldn't be automatically shot down just because it must necessarily effect another company (what was Netscape) that was totally concerned with applications that are solely about connecting to the web. Second, whether I agree with how laws apply to this or not (and I'm not sure I do or don't at this point, to be honest) it does seem that MS did break the law, and I have a problem with that.

As for my conclusions, I have never thought that the drastic move of breaking up the company was justified. That's such a total destruction of freedom brought down by the US government. I believe the move to break them up is less about genuinely protecting freedom and is rather (especially for those here) MAINLY about two things:

First, as Mac users, we all have a personal desire to see MS's operating system get kicked down a few notches. We have a personal vendetta, and too many of you out there are willing to have the US government carry out your personal desires against a company without really being too focused on how freedoms on BOTH SIDES come into play.

(Continued on next message)

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 12:50pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
continued again

(Continued from last message)

Second, there is a (liberal) mentality out there that couldn't care less about whether or not MS has its own freedom or whether its rights should be protecting--they don't care solely because MS is large and prosperous. Like it or not, the prosperity and position of MS belongs to them. Yes, they've made some coercive moves that should be punished, but the left is too quick to dismiss any semblance of rights and freedoms being possessed by MS and those who run it. In their minds, reading my above statements they have concluded that I must be somehow in the back pockets of MS--that I couldn't have come to these conclusions out of applying my on sense of personal freedom and innate rights to the situation. However, I am an avid Mac user, I have a personal dislike of Windows like many of you, I am not in the computer business in any way, and I don't own MS stock--rather, I am simply being a thinker, and I believe in the principles that I hold should be recognized as the only proper basis for our country and its government--innate individual freedom and innate human equality.

-Jay

zehspoon
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2001

0

09/06, 01:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
Attn: renatomac

Get over yourself. The election is over. Both sides knew what the rules were before the election started. If you had watched the news a few months back you would have seen that a couple of papers and TV outfits got together and finished the counts and guess what........Bush won.

It seems today that people want to bend the rules when they don't get their way. Tell me how the Supreme Court is guilty of treason? Please give good responses that will stand up in court, not some "'cause they stink" Also, tell me how they subverted the Constitution? Again use arguments that will stand up in a court, not just a rant on a forum.

I did not vote for Bush myself and I think that letting M$ off the hook is not a good thing. M$ has shown in the past not to be trustworthy and they will probably be the same here.

The election is over, move on. Get over your frustrations. Go out and try to change the system yourself. Just remember the electoral college is what gives the little states as much power as the larger states. If we did not have it then all politicians would have to do is to go to CA, FL, TX, and a couple of other states and disregard the rest. If you have a better plan please let us know. I will be glad to hear it (seriously).

Another thing to remember is that many other politicians have been elected by the dead. Illinois has a long history of the dead voting for democrats. I wonder where their voting place is located? Our government is in sad shape, both parties are too controlled by big business and $$$$$. They need to be more accountable to their constituents, but fighting about an election that is over is not the way to do it.

JHVH-1
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 01:24pm | report spam | close Reply |
Is anyone surprised?

Next, Bush and his little pals get Ford and Firestone off the hook.

dbj1000

Joined:

0

09/06, 01:25pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: Let's think

Your arguments may represent your views on the MS case, but claiming that this is the only view that can be reached by thinking about the subject is narrow-minded and crass.

Anti-monopoly (anti-trust in the US) laws are not some "liberal" invention. They are a cornerstone of a capitalist legal system that seeks to protect the public from companies that operate a monopoly in a particular field. MS holds such a monopoly (albeit a decreasingly powerful one) in the operating system market, and as such the public are entitled to be protected from abuses of that monopoly.

To make this a left versus right political argument isn't valid. Yes, right-wing free market supporters are in favour of less government intervention in business matters, but that does not put them in opposition to anti-trust legislation. Only if you believe in a world where large corporations such as MS have the public's best interests at heart could you believe that stict control of monopolistic practice is wrong. Whether or not you agree with the initial ruling to break up MS, I object strongly to the idea that this was somehow brought about by some "liberal" faction who wanted to see MS destroyed due to its success.

In cases like this the government should and must intervene to stop a company like MS abusing its position of power. Having the choice of using a Mac, or UNIX or Linux is not sufficient to make MS anything other than a monopoly, since its market share makes all other platforms niche-market (for now). MS has a history of ignoring more lenient "punishment" rulings for its breaches of the anti-trust laws. I think we will see that this time will be no different.

Bringing personal political views into this case and blaming it on the left-wing is unjustified, and the idea that Mac users had any hand in the ruling for a break-up of MS is just absurd.

Just my views, as a damned "liberal" so feel free to ignore them :-)

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 01:36pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
slashdot and politics

While slashdot is not always the best source for accurate info . . Bush was interviewed probably 100 times before the election about the Microsoft case . . and he said time and time again that he felt it was a fruitless trial and he had the chance he would not persue it any further. So um . . why is it a big suprise that he killed it?

Makosuke
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 01:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
How about paying taxes...

This could be either outright wrong or no longer true, but I seem to remember a story a while ago from several news outlets about the fact that MicroSoft is using some sort of loophole to get out of paying something like a couple [b]billion[/b] dollars in taxes, and I haven't heard of that changing (or being wrong) since then.

So: How about just making them pay as a remedy? I doubt the current administration cares any more than the previous one (or the one before that...) did, but that'd probably sting more than any "measures" that MS'd promptly ignore, and wouldn't hurt making up that evaporated surplus, either.

Unregistrated
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 02:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re; MSFT & Taxes & Stock

If you're looking for more information about Microsoft's tax loopholes and shady stock practices, please check out the following site:
http://billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 02:45pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: ...think...(dbj1000 )

Dear dbj1000,

Did you read my whole message? I addressed many of your points, just using a different set of concepts that are more basic to my concerns. WHY are anti-monopoly laws important? Is it because government should be in charge of setting prices, controlling businesses, etc? Of course not--not in this country--and I'm sure that's not what you are arguing for. To me, antitrust must be about protecting all freedoms fairly for it to be a proper roll of government in the US. That's the concept I thus focused on.

It also should NOT be about some blanket concept of "the public's best interest." I see that as a way of involving ANY concept that ANY faction might think is "best for the public." I hold that by our basic underlying principles, US government must been charged with holding only ONE thing to be "the public interest" as far as government is concerned--protecting innate freedom and innate equality. I think both sides of the political spectrum often choose other criteria to promote what they see as "the public's best interest," and when it comes to business matters, it is often the left pushing government intervention that is not simply focused on justly protecting all innate freedoms involved.

In my post, I expressed points about freedoms on both sides of this issue, and I argued that MS had used coercion. However, I believe a breakup is too drastic given what they've tried to do. I am not saying that thinking people can't disagree--that's fine, but I find that often their FIRST arguments are not about protecting freedoms and are instead about their own moralistic viewpoints about "the public's best interest." The breakup move is "pushed" (whether in courts or in discussion forums) for various reasons, but I believe many (not all) push it because that's what they personally would like to see happen to MS more so than because they have really decided to focus on the basic ideal of innate freedom.

-Jay

kerryb
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 02:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
Beige liberty

This thing has been dragging out so long M$ may be actually right with the prediction that any remedy will not have any real significance by the time it is implemented. Will the PC industry as we now know it even exist by then. I think the government and Bush got scared and think that not breaking up M$ would help the high tech industry instead it will only help wipe out new tecnologies that could be better or at least an alternative to the M$ way. The next few years will be very interesting with the coming open source
revolution, which unfortunately will eventually move the cutting edge of techology out of the USA and into Europe and the Pacific Rim countries. It was nice being the leader for the last 15 years now we will have to follow others lead.

t0ner

Joined:

0

09/06, 02:58pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Ralph Nader

...is one of the people who instigated the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, so maybe more of you folks who blame Bush should have voted for Ralph -- oh, I forgot about the VERY STUPID USA ELECTION SYSTEM that allows weak third party candidates to spoil your elections... here's how you can fix that www.fairvote.org

Joined:

0

09/06, 03:35pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Vote with your $$

This could all be/have been avoided by NOT BUYING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. Is this so difficult to understand ?? If consumers refuse to pay for crappy software and feed a monopolistic company such as M$, then M$ will have to make better software, lower prices and support other OS's. In other words, M$ will have to compete for business, something it doesn't have to do right now. Quit bitching about M$ and stop buying their products. It truly is that simple.

Bring on the flames

technologyhistorian
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

09/06, 05:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
Left vs. Right -- Wrong!

It's awfully hard to argue that the anti-trust case was instigated by liberals when decidedly conservative jurists like Robert Bork and Ken Starr advocated a breakup. Remember, US anti-trust law is a Republican legacy -- John Sherman, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft were all Republicans. Granted, these turn-of-the-century Republicans were cut from different cloth than their present-day fellows, but the whole point of anti-trust law is to promote and preserve the free market.

Regarding anti-trust activity, government intervention isn't about the government setting prices or hindering competition. Rather, government intervention is necessary to restore a free market once a monopoly begins to abuse its position. It is not illegal (in the US) to be a monopoly; it is illegal for a monopoly to engage in uncompetitive behavior. Therein lay the dilemma for Standard Oil, AT&T, and Microsoft. By using their position as a monopolist, they hindered market forces and invited government intervention so as to restore those forces.

And the current case is of more than purient interest to Mac users: one of the findings of fact (upheld on appeal) was that Microsoft had used its monopoly position to threaten Apple through the possibility of limiting or even discontinuing development of Mac Office. That's why IE suddenly appeared on Mac OS installs.

I for one am disappointed that DoJ is no longer pursuing a breakup. The oil and telecommunications industries benefitted greatly from the dissolution of their monopolists. If Microsoft really was as innovative as it claims it is, I wouldn't be worried. But since the genius of the company lies more in license negotiation (viz IBM with MS-DOS and Apple with Windows 1 & 2) than in innovation, the bullying tactics of the firm leave me with little doubt that regulatory remedies are at best temporary solutions. At some point down the road, another anti-trust suit will be brought and this whole mess will be revisited.

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 05:57pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Dubya

Yeah, Dubya. That abouts sums up it all up.

Now our budget surplus has vaporized, while Dubya never thought to repay the DEBT owed by us. Instead he bought off public appeal with his stupid tax cut. Sorry but my ideals and beliefs aren't for sale, Dubya. You could give me $1000 cash and I'd still vote your a** out of office the first chance I got.

What we have here is a typical, fiscally irresponsable Republican. Since 1980, the mantra of the right wing is "cut taxes, increase spending on millitary power, and saddle the next generation with the bill". And of course, as any well behaved right winger, W is the little b**** of every giant corporation in America (particularly the OIL barons).

I hope everyone who voted for W or Nader is real happy about the state of this country now. Recessions, budget deficits, and callousness are back with a vengance. Isn't it great!

"Make love not war"
--Bill Clinton

synergy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/06, 05:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
How much

How much you wanna bet Gore would have done the same thing when he came into office and saw the economy go into the crapper?
Gore knows how to play the game.
Besides a breakup of Microsoft is not necessarily the best thing. I also think the government has been pretty weak in punishing them as well.

Oh well, European Union still have their case against Microsoft.

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 06:03pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: let's think

quote:"Second, there is a (liberal) mentality out there that couldn't care less about whether or not MS has its own freedom or whether its rights should be protecting"

It's not about MS rights, it's about the rights of other companies to compete FAIRLY with MS. You don't seem to have followed the case with much attention. It's about a h*** of a lot more than integrating IE with Windows.

As for W, he is the puppet of big business and oil barons. Whether or not W actually made the order for the DOJ to not break up MS is a moot point. W filled DOJ positions with "good 'ol boys" who he knew would act according to his handlers wishes. You can bet your right arm that if Clinton were still in office the DOJ would be sicked on MS like a junkyard dawg.

BamaCat
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

09/06, 06:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
VP Cheney's son-in-law

The government's Microsoft case now is officially under the supervision of the son-in-law of Vice President Cheney.

Philip J. Perry, 36, was named acting associate attorney general on Aug. 17, overseeing the antitrust, civil, civil rights, environment and natural resources and tax divisions in the Department of Justice. Perry will fill the role during the U.S. Senate confirmation process for Jay B. Stephens, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. If Stephens is confirmed, Perry, who is married to vice presidential daughter Elizabeth Perry, will become Stephens's principal deputy.

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 06:14pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Think about it.

"How much you wanna bet Gore would have done the same thing when he came into office and saw the economy go into the crapper?"

Who says the economy would have gone in the crapper if Gore was elected? Investors were obviously happy with Clinton et. al. as stewards of our "free" economy. I see the recession as a panic attack that kicked into full force with the realization that the election was a sham, and that W's handlers would bring a far different economic philosophy to the White House. Think about it. The sources of recession are both psychological and economic.

But, even if the economy nosedived, I don't believe Gore would have dissolved the case against MS. A breakup of MS would be GOOD for the economy, because it would foster greater competition. It would stimulate greater small business growth in the tech sector.

I'm sure Nader is real happy about this one...he better be. If I see that man on the street he better turn and run the other way.

Joined:

0

09/06, 07:35pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Competition ??

You all b**** about the lack of "competition". Fine, so they split M$ and more companies are able to "compete". But what you people don't seem to understand is that without consumers BUYING the competing companies product, there really isn't "competition" . You people as consumers don't buy an alternate product and then complain that there is no "competition". Here's what you need to do. (Incidentally, this would work with gas prices and a lot of other things) STOP BUYING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS !!!! Buy something else. This would have a 2 fold effect. While supporting an alternate product you would be supplying the manufacturer of that product with needed $$$ and at the same time you would be taking $$ from M$. Its a lot like a points swing in sports. Not only are you giving the money to a "competing" company you are at the same time taking the money away from M$.

Am I all alone here ? ?? ? ?

\0

Joined:

0

09/06, 10:56pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
re: Am I all alone here ?

You're preaching to the converted.

Ster

Joined:

0

09/07, 12:04am | report spam | close Reply | delete
God forgive me...

God forgive me for discussing politics on MacNN.

That said...
Bush was in fact elected legitimately. I consider that unfortunate; others disagree. I'm sure that the economic slowdown would have occurred the same if Gore was elected; given the truly idiotic "investing" in dot-coms, it was inevitable that the market would deflate.
When you consider that the "surplus" is a PROJECTION, I think that tax refunds were not the best way to handle the money. I always got a kick out of how Bush referred to the national debt as the government's problem, while the projected surplus was the taxpayers' money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the debt the taxpayers' problem too, and the projected surplus the government's money?
If you watch The West Wing, you might remember seeing something like this:
[Staffer]: They want you to look at the ten year projections.
[President]: Have the ten year projections ever been even remotely accurate?
[S]: What do you mean "remotely"?
[P]: Within 100 billion dollars.
[S]: No. But they want you to look at the ten year projections anyway.
[P]: Fine. Get me the ten year projections, a magic wand, and a Ouija board.
I remember chuckling at the time, but that's more-or-less what we're doing. Unsettling, isn't it? I believe that paying down the debt would be more responsible. But hey, I'm not in charge. :-
As for the breakup, I think that breaking up Microsoft wouldn't really be all that effective at this point. Six or seven years ago, perhaps. But now, Windows is simply too firmly entrenched for anything short of actually discontinuing development and support for it to remove it from dominance. Even if the OEM license agreements were more open, so that major manufacturers could ship machines with alternate OSes, not enough people would buy them. Windows has too much inertia, pure and simple.
-Ster

Charles A
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

09/07, 04:18am | report spam | close Reply |
Surplus, schmurplus

The surplus isn't the government's money. It's far, far more complicated than that - it's not exactly taxpayers' money either.

I like Naomi Wolf's comment when someone asked her why she thought Gore (whom she advised) lost: "You mean, why did he win so narrowly that he lost?"

The economy would have tanked anyway - that was written in the stockmarkets which were well on the way down before the election. The dot-com rubbish and the telecoms overspend did that.

But saying that there's no point acting against MS, which has acted illegally - the appeals court accepted - is just pathetic. Let the worst man win.

Mystigo

Joined:

0

09/07, 01:08pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
President Bush

I would like to personally thank President Bush for my $300 tax "rebate". Now if he could just see his way clear to restoring the 6 figures I have lost in the stock market due to his fiscal irresponsibility, I would think him a mighty fine fellow.

Ster

Joined:

0

09/07, 01:49pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: no point...

I know the issue w/ the projected surplus isn't that cut and dried; I was simplifying to get the point across.
[quote]
But saying that there's no point acting against MS, which has acted illegally - the appeals court accepted - is just pathetic. Let the worst man win.
[/quote]
That's not what I said at all. All I said is I doubted the breakup would be effective. If they impose restrictions on business practices, and actually enforce them this time, then that might work.
Particularly, I think some of the following are interesting ideas. (I have NO idea if these are in consideration, or even legal! I'm just brainstorming here.)
1. Release documentation for private APIs, which has been used as a back-door to allow MS software, and only MS software, to "integrate" with the OS.
2. Loosen restrictions in OEM licencing agreements. Specifically, allow OEMs to keep their Windows licences while allowing them to ship alternate OSes. This won't be a huge help, but it will do something.
3. Release the file format specs for Office files. This lets alternative suites maintain Office compatibility, as well as letting alternative OSes have compatible suites.
4. Even better, open source the file specs for Office, so that people outside of MS can influence the growth of the system. I would suggest that they be licenced under BSD, not GPL, so that they can be incorporated into commercial software.
Again, I'm just thinking aloud here.
-Ster

\0

Joined:

0

09/07, 11:49pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: Dubya

How utterly stupid and intellectually dishonest!

First, Bush's budget plan DOES pay down the debt, just not as fast as Gore's--more importantly there is much of our debt that you simply CAN'T pay down faster! Look up info on where our debt actually lies sometime and find out what we really have the ability to pay back quickly.

Second, the stupidity about the 80s continues here in your comments: Both dems and repubs spent money! The tax cuts caused MORE money to come in, but spending went up even further. Every year but one, the congress spent more than Reagan's budget called for. The build up in military was NEEDED, it drastically helped win the cold war, and it's a large part of the reason why we've had such a win fall over the past 10 years. The 80s also allowed companies to invest in technology which became even more important during these last 10 years.

In truth--if you're really honest about it--Clinton had little real effect on the economy directly. At most, he provided some psychological sense of staying the course. In reality, he was mainly lucky to come in at a time just a bit before technology went like gang-busters and added a lot of fuel to the economy. Then people went crazy investing in dot-coms, and the whole internet craze took off. That's where the good economy came from, and that private-sector work gets about 80% of the credit. Clinton gets 5% credit in my book, the republican congress gets 5% for curtailing Clinton, and a good chunk of the other 10% goes to the progress and underpinnings that were produced in the 80s.

Now we've seen the fallacies in many of the dot-coms. THAT is what started the economy going down hill, and anyone with their eyes open knows it started before Bush even got elected. Trying to blame Bush is just is pitiful as trying to claim that Clinton somehow magically caused a good economy. It's allowing intellectual dishonesty for the sake of serving your own self interest, and it has little to do with reality.

-Jay

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/28	Absinthe jailbreak downloaded 1.1 million...
05/26	Apple updates iOS 5.1.1 release for...
05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...

Show All

05/28	Absinthe jailbreak downloaded 1.1 million...
05/27	Manufacturing problems delay blue Samsung...
05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

DOJ will not pursue MS break-up

updated 10:45 am EDT, Thu September 6, 2001

Related Articles

Recent Articles

GOD BLESS USA

failed before..

That's only HALF OF IT

...

it's ok, baby

windowsxp.gov

Buck Fush

Figures

Below...

no one elected him

Slashdot=c*** journalism

Let's think...

continued

continued again

Attn: renatomac

Is anyone surprised?

Re: Let's think

slashdot and politics

How about paying taxes...

Re; MSFT & Taxes & Stock

Re: ...think...(dbj1000 )

Beige liberty

Ralph Nader

Vote with your $$

Left vs. Right -- Wrong!

Dubya

How much

Re: let's think

VP Cheney's son-in-law

Think about it.

Competition ??

re: Am I all alone here ?

God forgive me...

Surplus, schmurplus

President Bush

Re: no point...

Re: Dubya

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace