| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 8, 2004 17:33 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554)In reply to: Microsoft's protocol license agreement by sab39
Parent article: Microsoft's protocol license agreement
You're right.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly did a very admirable job
handling the microsoft anti-trust case. The verdict in that case
was certainly fair, wouldn't you agree?
Oh! wait, in the face of overwhelming incontrovertable evidence
of wrong doing, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gave Microsoft a pass. Put them in charge of their own settlement, gave them dominion
over their own oversight, and instructed them to further tighten their
grip on the educational system.
Yes, the courts are doing a wonderful job.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 8, 2004 19:06 UTC (Mon) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link]
The courts can't force a plaintiff not to settle if that plaintiff is determined to do so. The plaintiff was the Justice Department.
There's no evidence to say what any judge would or wouldn't have done if the Justice Department had been willing to see the case through to the end. But when the organization in charge of prosecuting the case essentially concedes it (as happened with the change of Administration), there's not much the judge can do.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 8, 2004 20:42 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]
Okay, I get it.
As long as *someone* who is BIGGER than the US Department
of Justice goes after Microsoft, then the courts will be
fair and honest.
got it.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 8, 2004 20:44 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]
Yes, I am being cynical.
Or, perhaps in the face of current and past
events, skeptical.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 9, 2004 17:16 UTC (Tue) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link]
Actually I was suggesting that as long as *anyone* actually goes after them and sticks to it, the courts will be (at least to a first approximation) fair and honest. Seems that everyone who might have a case decides to settle instead, though - Sun, AOL/Netscape, and now Novell. In at least two out of three of these cases, "settle" appears to be a euphemism for "bend over"... too little information to tell if Novell's in that boat, yet, but their pullout from the European antitrust case suggests that it might have been.
Can't blame the courts for the fact that all the plaintiffs are (as the Governator would put it) legal girlie men...
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 9, 2004 21:49 UTC (Tue) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]
Well, in the end, I think everyone settles, because Microsoft hasvery deep pockets, and knows that if a Sun/Novell or whatever is
really going to be responsible to its stockholders, it's going to
take the money, rather than spend every last nickle in a vain
hope that it will live long enough to collect a judgement.
MS can, and will tie things up until it get terms it can live with,
and no one has pocket deep enough to test MS in the long haul.