Third time is the charm? [LWN.net]

Third time is the charm?

Posted Mar 3, 2009 3:17 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668)
In reply to: Third time is the charm? by JoeBuck
Parent article: Third time is the charm?

> Antitrust is another possible route: the only purpose of these patents is > to block interoperability.

This is a good point. But it'd be up to the AG to take the case. In the past there would have been little chance of that happening (recall that one of the earliest actions of Ashcroft after Bush was sworn in was to terminate the US vs. Microsoft suit). But Now that there's a new sheriff in town, this could turn up being an incredibly stupid move for Microsoft by demonstrating that they are still unrepentant monopolists.

to post comments

Third time is the charm?

Posted Mar 3, 2009 6:42 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2236785/google-face-monopoly-probe

For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem, Varney said at a panel discussion sponsored by the American Antitrust Institute. The US economy will continually see a problem potentially with Google because it already has acquired a monopoly in internet online advertising", she said, according to Bloomberg.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000115

Third time is the charm?

Posted Mar 3, 2009 15:06 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes. I expect we've all seen that quote.

The point is that the previous Department of Justice was *uninterested* in enforcing antitrust laws. The new one presumably will not be.

Ms. Varney is probably right to be focused more on Google than Microsoft as the latter's monopoly is certianly waining.

But the only earthly reason why someone would want to do what's covered in in the VFAT patent is to be compatible with a (bad) Microsoft technology that has become a standard due to the omnipresence of Windows.

Microsoft is now attacking their most credible a competitor with a patent purely to prevent us from using VFAT. That demonstrates very clearly that Microsoft is still capable and willing to illegally leverage its monopoly.

Before last month, such actions would have been ignored by the Federal government. Now I think that is less likely.

Third time is the charm?

Posted Mar 3, 2009 15:46 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

Now I think that is less likely.

Given the statement of the DoJ official in charge of anti-trust and the campaign contributions I linked to, I think your position is naiive. Only time will tell, however.