Skip

Justice Rejects Microsoft Penalty
November 16, 2001 3:02 PM   Subscribe

Justice Rejects Microsoft Penalty (yahoo news) The government considered but rejected penalties against Microsoft Corp. in its antitrust case that would have required the company to reveal the secret blueprints to its flagship Windows software and to distribute products from its fiercest rivals, court records show. The Justice Department also set up an e-mail address where consumers and companies may send their comments about the antitrust settlement. That address is: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov Whether or not you're pro-Microsoft, anti-Microsoft, or on the fence... I encourage everyone to send their thoughts along.
posted by SilentSalamander (9 comments total)

 
I think that a lot of people don't really have an opinion they've thought about to arrive at, just borrowed from whoever they think sounds the best. I don't know how many times someone said "Microsoft is a Monopoly" without even considering evidence. Personally, I think Bill Gates has done a wonderful job being a capitalist. It seems anti-capitalist that we'd take down the winning seller. Macintosh certainly isn't bankrupt. Linux is widely used--just look at the internet. I would hardly call that a monopoly.

Not that I endorse the capitalist system whole-heartedly, I just seem to find an amount of hypocrisy in the way things work.

Then again, I might just like Windows XP too much.
posted by trioperative at 3:19 PM on November 16, 2001


Umm, "triperative", "I don't know how many times someone said "Microsoft is a Monopoly" without even considering evidence", I hope you are trolling.

The "Findings of Fact" list plenty of evidence. Read 'em, plenty good for a laugh or a cry. At no point have the "Findings of Fact" been overturned or disputed by the Department of Justice and the State Departments. They are ... facts...

Therefore Microsoft is a Monopoly in the eyes of the law. What is most laughable is the pandering, pussy-footing, and kow-towing your DoJ is doing to avoid penalties or remedies to a company that it does not dispute is a monopoly. Kinda throws a wrench into all those wonderful monopoly laws... Who needs 'em?

Ahhh, these days I'm glad I don't live in Amerika!
posted by jkaczor at 3:35 PM on November 16, 2001


What is most laughable is the pandering, pussy-footing, and kow-towing your DoJ is doing to avoid penalties or remedies to a company that it does not dispute is a monopoly.

Who's trolling now?
posted by trioperative at 4:05 PM on November 16, 2001


I wouldn't call MS a monopoly, but they've done a lot of pretty underhanded things. Most of those have already successfully paid off, so the question of what you do about it in retrospect is a bit tricky.
posted by cps at 5:47 PM on November 16, 2001


Microsoft is not a monopoly. Period. One of the most disturbing things I've read since 9/11 is the assertion that (prior to 9/11) the government expended more resources (lawyers, money, time, courts, etc) in the pursuit of Bill Gates than it has trying to capture terrorists. I can't recall the source of the statement, or the figures involved, but it sounds reasonably accurate. If true (or even anywhere CLOSE to the truth), it is absolutely disgusting. Bill Gates, probably more than any single individual that you or I could name, was responsible for the economic boom of the last decade. He made computers *real* for the masses, which in turn kicked manufactures, developers, e-biz, etc, into high gear. Productivity, travel, entertainment, consumers, MeFi'ers, you name it -- nary an industry has been unaffected by the reach of the Computer Age in the last 10 years. And that's just the ripple effect -- the company itself employs (best guess) 20,000 people directly.

I know, I know, the economic boom is due to millions of people and products and ideas -- a great thing no matter how you slice it -- but if you had to narrow it down to one person who had the greatest impact during the past 10-15 years, I truly believe Gates should be the choice. And for this, he gets bullied by Uncle Sam? Threatened with force to reveal the source of the code that sparked the above-mentioned boom? Forced to spend thousands of billable hours on lawyers to defend his product and his business?

Hell, we should issue a stamp or put him on a coin.
posted by davidmsc at 8:51 PM on November 16, 2001


The simple fact that he "won" does not mean that his company is not a monopoly, nor does it mean that they didn't use illegal tactics against their competitors.

If you want a poor analogy -- which, if I know Mefi, you do -- if a man goes around breaking into poor peoples' houses and stocking their refrigerators full of fine meats and cheeses, he may be doing a good thing, but breaking and entering is still illegal.

Oh, and --

"Who's trolling now?"

Um...not jkaczor. Based on his comment (the last sentence), he's not from this country. So, it wouldn't be *his* DoJ, and I'm sure it's not the *only* DoJ. So saying "your DoJ" would be accurate, if perhaps unnecessary. I still don't think it's trolling either way.
posted by CrayDrygu at 9:32 PM on November 16, 2001


Uh, I doubt Bill's in any hurry to be on a stamp. Unless the USPS has changed its policy, you have to be dead to be immortalized in philatelic fashion.
Not to detract from your point, davidmsc--I have no beef with Mr. Gates or the success of his company and don't see any justification for the DOJ suit.
posted by StOne at 9:38 PM on November 16, 2001


Microsoft is a monopoly. For now. Which is why the case was silly. Microsoft got to their position by being ruthless, against ruthless opposition (paging Ellison). That is not a bad thing. There is competition in the OS field, Linux is a true competitor on the server side, and victory is still up in the air in the game console and handheld business.

AOL is the real evil monopoly, and they just keep sliding under the radar. Of course, when you own the broadcast tower its a lot easier....
posted by owillis at 11:59 PM on November 16, 2001


"blue prints"?

I think most people on metafilter know what "source code" means
posted by delmoi at 7:23 AM on November 17, 2001


« Older Bruce Lee to star in new movie 28 years after his...   |   Beware the white van: Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post