Microsoft Hatred FAQ
wookie at aces.localdomain
Thu Oct 27 12:43:08 CEST 2005
In <7xbr1b74rf.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com> Paul Rubin:
> The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld
> that MS had an illegal monopoly.
And M$ is still intransigent about that LEGAL FACT, much to the dismay
of the federal judge overseeing the latest (toothless) consent decree:
In a rare display of indignation, U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly demanded an explanation from Microsoft's lawyers and
told them, "This should not be happening."
Legal and industry experts said Microsoft's demands probably would
have violated a landmark antitrust settlement the same judge approved
in 2002 between the company and the Bush administration. The
government and Microsoft disclosed details of the dispute in a court
document last week.
Just to really get her riled, the M$ snakes pulled another stunt:
"This needs to get done," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
said of a project designed to help put potential rivals on a more
equal competitive footing with Microsoft.
"If there's an issue of resources, then put them in," said
Kollar-Kotelly, who endorsed the settlement with the U.S. government
and state attorneys general in November 2002.
More at (line wrapped):
Any M$ apologists saying M$ isn't an illegal monopoly are just as much
a part of that pack of liars and thieves as M$ itself.
They need to discuss it with Judge Colleen, and STignorantFU about it.
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
More information about the Python-list