The USA v. Microsoft - HTML version

OK so this is probably just one of a thousand mirror and pseudo-mirror sites, but I just put the USA v. Microsoft judgement up on my website. As noted on Slashdot, the original text really is worth reading, the audacity of Microsoft's predation beats any novel for a gripping read. And it actually has amazingly clear and concise definitions of some basic computing terms such as "operating system" and "PC" - useful if you have a computing 101 essay to write!

The original published version is available only in Word Perfect or the Abominable Acrobat format, so I've created a more useful HTML version which is basically just clean text with some basic paragraphing.

Available from a link on my homepage in the form of a 117K zip file, it's less than half the size of the official download. <URL: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/>

-Shez.

In article ,

A copy of the USA v. Microsoft judgement? Judge Jackson will be very upset with your coup; this coming so soon after the release of his findings of fact.

Apparently he had scheduled the official release until the third Tuesday following a full moon in an unknown month with a 'y' in it's name. This would allow him sufficient time to secure the movie and publishing rights to his ruling.

Ah well. It is a hard life.

[email] of Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:

Ok, his findings of fact; my judgement. If you read it you will find it's pretty damning, since he has found it to be a *fact* that Microsoft has stifled innovation, harmed consumers, etc., etc., and he describes all these evil deeds in gory detail. Given that the facts have been established, the actual judgement is more a matter of horse trading and Microsoft spending another few hundred million on lawyers in an attempt to wriggle out of it, or perhaps buying all the dictionary publishers so as to get words such as "fact", "harm", "stifle" etc. redefined.

-Shez.

In article ,

If the Pope is infaliable, I would be generous and say Jackson is addled and senile.

When he lists his '*facts*', he is listing his *opinion*. Not a hallowed truth.

Despite sleeping through some of the best testimony money can buy, the man seems to have less of an understanding of the case than your average Ziff-Davis columnist. His reasoning is shallow and contradictory.

Jackson's diatribe notwithstanding, MS is no more or less evil than it was Thursday.

Ah yes. If the legal system supports MS, they are avoiding their proper punishment. If it condemns MS, all is well.

[email] writes:

That's interesting, as industry observers seem to be busy applauding him for his remarkable insight. Eg. Slashdot's legal advisor said

     "This decision from Judge Jackson is the best legal field guide I've
       seen to the new economy. It's great. This judge really gets it!"

And I'm inclined to agree.

We should bear in mind that the court has rejected pretty much everything Microsoft's lawyers have said during the months of hearings as untrue. All would not be well if they found some loophole to get themselves off the hook.

-Shez.

In article ,

him

I've

it!"

Slashdot's legal advisor said that? I would assume he was referring to the part of the Jackson's findings where Linux was declared to be a silly and insignificant fad for marginalized geeks.

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:19:34 GMT, [email] wrote:

One wonders that you have any time to post at all; I thought you'd be too busy cashing those checks Microsoft sends you for being their good little brainwashed cheerleader. Of course, what could *I* possibly know, being a marginalized geek and all...

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
      Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
  http://www.lawndale.net  -OR-  http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/

In article ,

to

Bwahahaha... why would Microsoft have to send me a cheque?

The DOJ probably spent $50 million in lawyers fees to have that Linux attack published.

Who spends time, money, or effort anymore when the government will do your dirty work for free.

Have you actually read the document? Linux is only mentioned in paragraphs 50, 51, 54 and 60. That leaves 408 paragraphs which don't have any mentions of Linux, which hardly makes it a Linux attack.

In article ,

Did I say the whole document centred on Linux: No.

Did I say some of the document discussed Linux: Yes.

Does any of the document concern Linux: Yes, see above.

Do those parts of the document say that Linux is a toy for propellerheads: Yes.

Was I correct, or do you just like to see your name in print: Yes.

                                                 No.  You called it a
						 Linux attack - hardly
						 the same thing.

No.

HTH John

I have no idea of the details in the Microsoft case, but you should consider that the way that anti-trust law is formulated, you can be held guilty of:

• Price-gouging if you charge more than your competitors,

• Undercutting if you charge less than your competitors, and

• Price-fixing if you charge the same as your competitors.

Anti-trust law enables the government to quite legally "get" any businessman or business they don't like. And that's probably why it was originally formulated, regardless of its ostensible purpose.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)

On 11 Nov 1999 15:15:38 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:

This wouldn't work unless one had a monopoly.

Only if it can be proven that you are taking a loss (rather than simply settling for less profit, or producing more efficiently and therefore having less production costs) with the specific purpose of driving competitors out of the market.

Only if it can be proven that you and your "competotors" colluded with the intent of, well, fixing the price.

The government can quite "legally" "get" just about anyone if all three branches decide to collude on an issue (an unlikely thing, given the number of people involved. Someone'll blow the whistle). And if the public doesn't notice...

• Tarvok (UIN 37083068) http://members.xoom.com/Tarvok remove NOSPAM to reply via E-mail Ap D+ T3 Wn Q++ FN^FR O Os m c- MV- C5X F102,209,308 BB+ FCJ +DT++ q FS:p

Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.

In article ,

No, no, exactly the same thing. Part of the document did that.

Are you claiming that the document didn't mention Linux?

I doubt it. Very unlikely.

At best, we can hope your message took up some desperately needed disk space at a bio-weapons research lab.

HAND.

No, and as no part of what I wrote could possibly construed as suggesting I was claiming that one can only assume that you're trying to build straw men.

John

In article ,

I am sorry that one can only assume that. One seems somewhat limited.

You posted a very silly message in an attempt to start an even sillier argument of semantics. Don't become upset when your troll is ignored.

No I didn't. I posted a correction to your obvious error.

It wasn't a troll, and you didn't ignore it did you? Don't get upset when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out.

John

In article ,

wrote:

limited.

sillier

semantic: of or relating to the meanings of words

I hope this clears things up for you.

HAND.

stop this! this getting too silly!

(resurrecting Graham chapman to put an end to this thread)

Dagny

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/

"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot

On 11 Nov 1999 22:36:40 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Dagny Scott), and it said:

You're still here!

*HUG*

I knew you wouldn't leave for good. :)

• Tarvok (UIN 37083068) http://members.xoom.com/Tarvok remove NOSPAM to reply via E-mail Ap D+ T3 Wn Q++ FN^FR O Os m c- MV- C5X F102,209,308 BB+ FCJ +DT++ q FS:p

Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.

On 11 Nov 1999 17:17:20 -0000, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (John Winters), and it said:

You know, even Roman persecutors would accept this statement as a "recant" on an issue, and let the one who said it go free. I just realized how silly it is for someone to say, "you said this," the other to respond "no I didn't," then "yes you did," "nu-uh," "uh-huh..."

:p

• Tarvok (UIN 37083068) http://members.xoom.com/Tarvok remove NOSPAM to reply via E-mail Ap D+ T3 Wn Q++ FN^FR O Os m c- MV- C5X F102,209,308 BB+ FCJ +DT++ q FS:p

Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.

Look, this isn't an argument! Yes it is!

the determined to tearn this thread into a Monty Python sketch,

Dagny

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/

"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:42:01 GMT, [email] wrote:

Hi, Bill. Found a use for the internet after all, have you?

Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

In article , [email] wrote:

Why, yes. I distract you with inflammatory Usenet messages, while my men install mind control chips into your buttocks.

If only MSN had a decent newsserver.

so anyone who disagrees with you is being bribed AND is brainwashed? And worse yet a cheerleader?

Well I'm glad your viewpoints are so obviously superior to everyone else's.

Dagny

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/

"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot

On 10 Nov 1999 21:30:25 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

Of course! My "obviously superior viewpoint" means that any other consideration is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

I see some things haven't changed. Like the fact that you can shove your foot right down your throat without knowing (or caring about) even the most miniscule of facts. But then, that didn't stop you before, so I guess it's silly of me to think it'll have any effect now.

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
      Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
  http://www.lawndale.net  -OR-  http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/

notice why I didn't take for granted any more than a few of you wanted me here...

ah, I could make such replies, but I really don't need another argument on this group.

Dagny

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/

"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot

this

Yay! Nor does anyone else. Now let's all bitch about something we dislike, like Daria fans all liking Barbie according to amazon :P

In article , "Greg Pallis" wrote:

THANK YOU.

exactly...

What about Barbie! That bitch stole my pink porche, dream date, my bra size I was supposed to have, and my waist! And every job interveiw I go to, she gets the job! How many jobs does she have anyway! Flight attendant, astronaut, olympic gymnast, store owner, professional basketball player, salon owner, scuba diver, detective, archaeologist, fashion desiner, model, swimmer, singer, cowgirl, teacher, actress, attorney, life gaurd, ice skater, journalist, baker, charity helper...

And to think she's in her forties. Damn plastic surgery...

cheryl

I'm not bitter, what are you talking about?

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:05:12 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from wicka_chick , and it said:

ROTFLMAO!

Don't worry, I heard in some song something about GI Joe and the Eskimos killing her with a knife...

• Tarvok (UIN 37083068) http://members.xoom.com/Tarvok remove NOSPAM to reply via E-mail Ap D+ T3 Wn Q++ FN^FR O Os m c- MV- C5X F102,209,308 BB+ FCJ +DT++ q FS:p

Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.

In article , [email] (Tarvok) typed like a mad speed demon:

Hmmmm...Eskimos. Alrighty then.

cheryl

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:05:12 GMT, wicka_chick wrote:

But there's one thing she can't take away from you -- your sex life! I do hope, though, that I will live to see Politically Correct Barbie and Ken replaced by Anatomically Correct Barbie and Ken.

*plastic* surgery. LOL. I'll have to remember that one :-) MSB

does anyone else find it ironic that at the same time we're prosecuting Microsoft for being a monopoly, we're letting AT&T take over every aspect of communications?

Crazy Nutso wrote:

What do you expect from a company whose logo is the Death Star?

rich.

Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.

Jake: Jefferson!

Helen: Stalin.

Crazy Nutso writes:

I thought AT&T had long since been broken up under the same legislation. Hasn't it been replaced by a lot of small competing Baby Bells?

-Shez.

Shez wrote:

"Baby Bells" is another oxymoronic term-- they're all gigantic, ponderous regional communications monopolies, that have been merging with each other over the past decade to form even larger, more ponderous regional communications monopolies. The one good thing that the AT&T breakup did, though, was to significantly lower long distance rates. (Okay, it also opened up innovation in telecommunications, too, as all of these new competitors were free to try new things-- each company can take the money it makes and invest it in all sorts of weird research.)

The ironic thing is that the AT&T breakup did NOT provide any relief to the local telephone customers, who are, for the most part, STILL at the mercy of one monopolistic company, which varies by region. Some states have been trying to force the markets open, but I'm not sure of the success elsewhere-- here, there's been about -0- success. So, until then, I have to pay through the nose to make a call 15 miles away. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

rich.

Mr. O'Neill: Let's pledge to make Daria's dream a reality!

Daria: You mean the one where people walking down the street burst into flames?

Mr. O'Neill: The coffeehouse!

paperpusher wrote in message news:[email]...

There is one important thing that the breakup and accompanying de-regulation did was allow me to use a modem and connect my computer. If you'll remember, back in the bad-old-days we weren't allowed to connect any equipment to telephone company lines that the telephone company didn't provide. For most people, connecting via modem involved an acoustic modem connected to the telephone handset at speeds less than 300 bits/sec. If we did want to connect we had to rent the modem from the phone company and pay through the nose for the privilege. Now we can stride into whatever discount store we like, pick out our favorite modem, bring it home, plug it in, and connect to the internet. It's been this facility that has made the internet explosion possible. I doubt anyone would want to deal with the world-wide-wait at 300 baud.

paperpusher of the

So I guess you still have to suffer free local calls, eh? What a bummer.

-Shez.

Shez wrote:

Ah, but it's all in the definition of "local." If I go 15 miles in one direction, it's still local, but if I go 5 miles in another, it isn't. In fact, it's sometimes more expensive than long distance. The whole scheme is just plain stupid.

rich.

Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.

Jake: Jefferson!

Helen: Stalin.

Yeah, my aunt's like 15 minutes south, and it's long distance, and damn expensive. As a result, she uses e-mail :) And from Grand Rapids MI it's more expensive to call Detroit than another state... weird...

Dagny

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/

"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot

On 14 Nov 1999 00:22:18 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

Ha. That's nothing. During daytime I can phone anyone in the United States cheaper than someone in Berlin. Calling the US is generally cheaper than calling any European country (including my own). MSB

Matthias Benkmann wrote in message news:[email]...

more

Ah, another chance for me to post the atd slogan.... Atd slogan: "Now stop pitying yourselves and pity ME, for God's sake!"

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:36:24 -0000, "Greg Pallis" wrote:

Grrrr! I hate it when someone uses my own words against me. You are right, though. What do you want to be pitied for? MSB

In article ,

Thank you Matthias for helping me see the bright side...if that is a bright side anyway...

Glad you like it :)

cheryl

Sounds about right - the truth hurts :-)

Rob

On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:08:03 GMT, [email] wrote:

Well, yes. That's rather obvious.

Jackson's diatribe was just an accounting of how evil MS was last Thursday.

Whether his reasoning is flawed or not is not proven by your posting obvious inanities.

Depends who you ask.

In article , [email] wrote:

it

It wasn't obvious to the original poster. That is why I wrote it.

Of course it does. The original poster felt that way.

You seem very skilled at posting my quotations and surrounding them with useless commentary.

Give me your number; you may come in useful if I decide to write my memoirs.

Shez wrote:

Actually, it's almost impossible for M$ to wriggle out of the findings of fact. The Court of Appeals only deals in matters of law, not of fact, with one exception-- when a trial court has abused its discretion. That burden of proof is well-nigh impossible to meet, especially in this case. (Considering the number of witnesses involved, it's way beyond a simple "he said, she said" sort of thing.) About all the Court of Appeals can do is criticize his final Rulings of Law, which are based on the Findings of Fact. So, in the end, it'll simply be a question of whether the action he took was too extreme/not extreme enough. If he only uses a series of injunctions to govern M$, there'll be little room for a M$ appeal. If, however, he splits the whole thing up, then there might be some room for an appeal, but based on his Findings, it'll be tough going, even for M$.

Meanwhile, if I'm the DOJ, there's no way in hell that I'm settling with them now. No way at all.

rich.

Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.

Jake: Jefferson!

Helen: Stalin.

Well I waded through this thing and all it brings to mind to me is that old joke: "Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 70?" "A: Your honor."

How he could possibly come to these conclusions based on what facts that must have been presented is amazing.

"R. K. Henry" wrote:

It's simple-- Microsoft made a basic tactical mistake-- they were arrogant, and this arrogance translated itself into its presentations in court. If you remember, there was at least one incident when the Microsoft attys were yelled at by the judge for not listening to him. Their hubris was rewarded when he decided not to believe a single word that any of their witnesses uttered. They violated the Prime Directive-- never piss off a judge who is appointed for life-- and paid the price. Such is life before the bench-- if they'd been a little more willing to settle, and a little less willing to play hardball with the U.S. Gov't., well, then they wouldn't be snivelling now. Clients. Can't live with 'em.

rich.

Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.

Jake: Jefferson!

Helen: Stalin.

In article , [email] wrote:

A government of laws? A government of men? I sometimes can't remember, either.

I can understand their confusion -- being isolated from American political life for so long they probably forgot that matters such as these are decided on a capricious whim.

It doesn't matter that you are innocent, you are arrogant.

Who do you want to tyrranize today?

Ah yes, if you put the lubrication on yourself it will hurt less.

Exactly the system of governance I want to live under. The system is perfect, Microsoft's self-respect is flawed.