To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Microsoft was .. on desktop operating systems."
No.
"You can read U.S. v Microsoft."
I did , you on the other end read the paper about it ;-)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm#supreme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. "
"The rest of your comment is equally stupid."
No ...
Do you ever bother to read the things that you link to? The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving the ruling in place that Microsoft was guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Jackson's remedy was overturned while his findings were upheld, and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly instructed the DoJ and Microsoft to come to a settlement over punishment.





Member since:
2006-01-01
Microsoft was in fact found guilty of using anti-competitive behavior to maintain its monopoly on desktop operating systems. You can read U.S. v Microsoft. At no point was the suit dropped; the DoJ under Ashcroft simply didn't seek the same remedies the Reno DoJ had in mind.
The rest of your comment is equally stupid.