DFS wrote:
> High Plains Thumper quoted:
>>> ml2mst wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a Google translation of a recent article by
>>>> Brenno de Winter:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7eq4d
>>>>
>>>> Yet another valid reason to oppose [YaVRTO] against
>>>> MONO.
>>>
>>> Here is another YaVRTO from EU:
>>>
>>> http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
>>>
>>> [quote] Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior
>>> and Consumer Harm March 31, 2009 [...]
>>>
>>> A. Microsoft’s Failure To Comply With The Final Judgment
>>>
>>> In 2003, the DOJ discovered that Microsoft had built a
>>> feature into Windows that invoked Microsoft’s Internet
>>> Explorer browser, rather than the user’s chosen default
>>> browser, contrary to the clear obligations of the Final
>>> Judgment. [120]
>>>
>>> Similarly, in 2004, Microsoft attempted to require
>>> licensees of its middleware offering, the .NET Framework,
>>> to obtain Microsoft’s prior consent before publishing any
>>> benchmark testing results for the software. [121]
>>>
>>> In 2005, Microsoft demanded that manufacturers of portable
>>> music players sign exclusive deals if they wanted
>>> integration with Microsoft’s Windows Media Player. [122]
>>>
>>> And in 2007, Microsoft made changes to allow consumers
>>> limited choice of desktop search products in Windows Vista
>>> only following an extensive government investigation and
>>> pressure from a number of U.S. States. While Microsoft
>>> eventually made changes to its conduct in each of these
>>> instances, these incidents all demonstrate Microsoft’s
>>> willingness to use its monopoly products aggressively
>>> first and make changes later only when confronted about
>>> its behavior. This is particularly striking coming, as it
>>> does, within the very limited range of issues covered by
>>> the Final Judgment. [123]
>>>
>>> In fact, the district court overseeing the Final Judgment
>>> extended the decree for two more years, to November 12,
>>> 2009, because Microsoft still has not come into compliance
>>> with its obligations regarding communications protocols.
>>> [124] [/quote]
>>>
>>> Footnotes:
>>>
>>> [quote] 120. See Interim Joint Status Report on
>>> Microsoft’s Compliance with the Final Judgments at 6 (Oct.
>>> 17, 2003), United States v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30
>>> (D.D.C. 2000) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f201300/201386.pdf
>>>
>>> 121. See Interim Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s
>>> Compliance with the Final Judgments at 7–8 (Oct. 8, 2004),
>>> United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30
>>> (D.D.C. 2000) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f205700/205751.pdf
>>>
>>> After plaintiffs, which included the United States and
>>> several state attorneys general, brought this complaint to
>>> Microsoft’s attention, Microsoft responded that it was
>>> willing to require prior notice, rather than prior
>>> consent. See id.
>>>
>>> However, plaintiffs still believed this response was
>>> inadequate to comply with the Final Judgment and continued
>>> to demand modification of this requirement until Microsoft
>>> eventually gave in, agreeing to make “additional changes”
>>> resolving plaintiffs’ concerns.
>>>
>>> See Interim Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s Compliance
>>> with the Final Judgments at 6 (June 1, 2005), United
>>> States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)
>>> (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f209300/209307.pdf
>>>
>>> 122. See Interim Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s
>>> Compliance with the Final Judgments at 12–13, (Oct. 19,
>>> 2005), United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30
>>> (D.D.C. 2000) (No. 98-1232). The DOJ’s October 2005 Joint
>>> Status Report noted that it was “unfortunate that the
>>> draft specification contained the exclusivity provision.”
>>> Id. at 13.
>>>
>>> 123. The European Commission recently fined Microsoft
>>> $1.35 billion for failure to comply with the Commission’s
>>> 2004 antitrust ruling. See Peppi Kiviniemi, EU Fines
>>> Microsoft $1.35 bn, LiveMint, , Feb. 28, 2008,
>>> http://www.livemint.com/2008/02/27210155/EU-fines-Microsoft-135-bn.html?atype=tp
>>>
>>> A lawyer for ECIS expressed a similar regret in regards to
>>> Microsoft’s conduct in the EC, observing that it is “more
>>> profitable [for Microsoft] to reap the anticompetitive
>>> benefits of non-compliance with the law and to pay the
>>> fines than to comply.” Id.
>>>
>>> 124. See Memorandum Opinion at 38 (Jan. 29, 2008), New
>>> York v. Microsoft Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002)
>>> (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/pdf/Jan292008MemOp.pdf
>>>
>>> (“It is abundantly clear that more than five years after
>>> the Communications Protocols and related technical
>>> documentation were required to be available to licensees
>>> under § III.E, the documentation envisioned by that
>>> Section is still not available to licensees in a complete,
>>> useable, and certifiably accurate form.”).
>>>
>>> The district court extended the decree “based upon the
>>> extreme and unforeseen delay in the availability of
>>> complete, accurate, and useable technical documentation
>>> relating to the Communications Protocols that Microsoft is
>>> required to make available to licensees….” Id. at 3.
>>>
>>> The district court further noted that allowing the
>>> provisions of the Communications Protocols to expire
>>> jeopardized the “full procompetitive impact” of the Final
>>> Judgment. Id. at 4.
>>>
>>> 3. Government Exhibit 940, Handwritten Notes of Intel’s
>>> Steven McGeady, United States v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d
>>> 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (No. 98-1232), available at
>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/940.pdf ;
>>>
>>> see also Transcript of the Direct Examination of Intel’s
>>> Steven McGeady, Nov. 10, 1998, at 18:8–20:6, United States
>>> v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (No.
>>> 98-1232), available at
>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/trial.html
>>>
>>> (“November 10, a.m.” link) (testifying that Mr. Gates
>>> further indicated the one thing Microsoft might change was
>>> its document retention policies).
>>>
>>> 4. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34,
>>> 54-58 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also Competition on the
>>> Internet: Hearing of the House Competition Policy and
>>> Antirust Laws Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee,
>>> 110th Cong. 49 (2008) (remarks of Bradford L. Smith,
>>> Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate
>>> Secretary, Microsoft Corporation) (acknowledging that as
>>> of July 2008, “we know that we have a dominant position,
>>> for example, in the market for personal computer operating
>>> systems”).
>>>
>>> 13. See Jon Pepper, Like MS-DOS, Only Better, SOFTWARE
>>> MAG., Oct. 1990,
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SMG/is_n12_v10/ai_9560823
>
> Signed, HPT Shameless Hypocrite I Make A Good Living With
> Windows I Have No Plans To Ever Switch To Linux
>
> <snip shameless hypocrisy posted by a Linux luser>
DFS projecting itself on others. This is an example of:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
12. Blame your stupidity and lies on your opponent. Blame
your own stupidity on the Linux advocate you are dealing with.
Such as when you have made an unsupportable claim that suggest a
list of details and your are asked to present your non-existent
list reply with, "I don't have to list them for you; you aren't
bright enough to know what you're missing by using X instead of a
real Y, I'm not going to explain it to you." Then hope that
nobody reading the thread realizes that your statement translates
as, "I lack the knowledge or facts needed to counter your
position or your position is too complete and accurate to be
refuted. So, I will say things to sound superior to avoid
admitting you are right."
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/dfs-troll.html
[quote]
Traits:
* Racist
* Habitual liar
* Microsoft apologist
[/quote]
--
HPT
|
|
