<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/19239/Microsoft_US_Consent_Decree_Extended_Two_More_Years</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:03:11 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>Makes pefect sense.</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?298420</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?298420</guid>
			<description>If they can't implement rulings properly, they need to get their arses kicked some more, as we say in Ireland. ;-)</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (SReilly)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Standard procedure</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?298445</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?298445</guid>
			<description>IMO, it should be standard procedure to protect competition and &quot;We, The Poeple&quot; by putting a watchdog on any company declared to be a monopoly.  I don't care if it is Microsoft and operating systems, or Acme, Inc. and widgets.  The business instincts which make for a healthy and successful &quot;regular&quot; company become dangerous to free competition and the common good when practiced by a player with the advantages and power of a monopoly position.  The terms of the decree seem fair and reasonable to me, and should apply as long as Microsoft holds its monopoly position in that industry.<br />
 <br />
 At any rate, it's nice to see that Microsoft's foot dragging regarding compliance didn't help them any.Edited 2008-01-30 12:14 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Standard procedure</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?298462</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?298462</guid>
			<description>Absolutely in agreement with you on that one, and I doubt it could have been said better.<br />
<br />
Personally, I feel that large scale corporate entities should be discouraged, full stop, in favor of more smaller companies, thereby evening out the playing field and preemptively dealing with potential monopoly situations.<br />
<br />
Just my two cent.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (SReilly)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Let me go ahaed and save the Trolls some trouble</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?298475</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?298475</guid>
			<description>Waaah  Waah.<br />
<br />
You shouldn't punish a company for success!<br />
<br />
Waah! Waah!</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (daddio)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Let me go ahaed and save the Trolls some trouble</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?298771</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?298771</guid>
			<description>Success at what?<br />
A great OS, or great at strongarming?<br />
That's all I want to know.</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (godzero)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
