Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft faces yet another antitrust case

Hash: SHA1

____/ Rex Ballard on Thursday 20 Oct 2011 23:25 : \____

> On Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:16:27 AM UTC-4, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> ____/ Homer on Thursday 20 Oct 2011 06:38 : \____
>> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20111017182502925
>> > Here I was thinking Microsoft was keen to make sure people "Get The
>> > Facts", but apparently that does not include the inconvenient facts
>> > about its criminal behaviour.
> Microsoft wants you to get the facts THEY want you to get.  The rest are
> protected by nondisclosure agreements, sealed court settlements, and brand
> protection clauses in license and reseller agreements.
>> > Oh well, here we go again with another farcical antitrust trial, from
>> > which Microsoft will walk away scot-free, because half the senate is
>> > living in its pockets.
> Microsoft does not do well in Jury trials.  They will probably lose the trial,
> but then they will get some of the verdict overturned on appeal and craft a
> settlement.  I suspect that the motion to quash the "findings of fact" is
> simply establishing grounds for an appeal.
> Judges have learned their lesson with Microsoft.  They have discovered that
> Microsoft will attempt to introduce new facts, or new interpretations that are
> completely unsupported by evidence and were dismissed as incorrect or
> irrelevant or ruled as criminal acts by the judge.
> If you can't argue the facts, argue the intent.  If you can't win on the facts
> or the intent, then argue the technicalities.
>> And Microsoft would also try to convince people that "because it happened
>> so long ago" then the crime "is acceptable" (like Blair on Iraq war).
> A win by Novell could open the doors to IBM and Corel, as well as Red Hat,
> Slackware, and dozens of other companies.
> I suspect that Homer is correct, however.  Microsoft will create a whole
> series of objections and motions that the judge will dismiss or reject, which
> will then give them grounds to have most or all of the verdict overturned on
> appeal.
> Microsoft's tactics against the products now owned by Novell allowed Microsoft
> to gain about $1 trillion in excess profits over almost 20 years.
> Illegal bundling allowed Microsoft to wipe out competition, which allowed
> Microsoft to charge premium prices, and extend and lock-in their monopoly
> which allowed them to charge higher prices for Windows and retain artificially
> high market share.
> As a result, innovation for Windows was stifled, and even most of innovation
> that did occur ended up on Linux, because those companies who did start to
> make a profit on Windows software were usually bankrupted by Microsoft's
> third-rate shovel-ware.
> If top corporate executives had known back in 1991 that choosing Windows over
> Unix, OS/2, or Linux would result in $trillions in lost productivity due to PC
> corruption, hackers, malware, spyware, and poor quality, would they still have
> chosen Windows and MS-Office?
> Microsoft has made a business model out of fraud, extortion, blackmail,
> sabotage, obstruction of justice, and bribery.

Can you mention some older cases of Microsoft bribery? I am only familiar 
with more recent examples (the past 5 years or so).

> When Microsoft is above the law, lawlessness will prevail.
> We have seen the script kiddies go from "kilroy was here" to sucking $billions
> out of personal and corporate bank accounts through viruses, identity theft,
> and wire fraud.  Mostly by exploiting well-known back-doors provided by
> Microsoft to monitor software piracy.

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com  | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
Managing partner @ http://scifitness.co.uk & http://iuron.com
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index