To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"The "informal" definition (New Oxford) of the adjective criminal:
"informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste."
He's plenty close enough, regardless of the legalese."
I wouldn't call bundling a browser with an OS "deplorable" or "shocking".
Anyway, he's not anywhere near close. He wasn't speaking "informally". He talked of "criminal conviction".
Here's one huge difference:
In order to be convicted of a criminal matter, one must be found unanimously guilty by a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In order to be found liable of civil infraction, one must only be found liable based on "preponderance of evidence" (i.e. 50% of the evidence plus one), a much lower burden of proof than "beyond reasonable doubt". And such can be declared by a single judge, rather than a jury, who may or may not be a moron.
Here's another difference. Microsoft was found liable for actions taken *before* it was ruled that they had a monopoly in a particular market. And then they were punished for those actions in a retroactive fashion. Such is not possible under criminal law. (This is one of the flaws I find in antitrust law; due to its retroactive nature, you have to second-guess every action you take at a given time for fear that some judge *might* declare at some point in the future that you had a monopoly at some time in the past. It's BS.)
And no, this isn't simply an academic debate.
The reason that antitrust law is civil law and not criminal law is that antitrust law has nothing to do with good or evil. It's not inherently evil to do anything that Microsoft did. It was only that since they had a dominant position in a particular market, that those actions were deemed harmful for the marketplace. Not "evil", just harmful. Using words like "criminal" carries the "evil/deplorable" baggage, which is inappropriate for this case.
Anyway, it's not relevant to the OSI submission process, despite DiBona's wishes to the contrary.
Edited 2007-08-19 16:10





Member since:
2006-07-04
"Convicted of being a Monopoly is an admission the company is criminal."
You might want to research the difference between "criminal" law and "civil" law before speaking on this topic again, lest you continue to look uneducated.
Oh, and "convicted of being a monopoly" is a meaningless phrase.
Edited 2007-08-19 04:54