CharlotteTheHarlot, 2013-08-28 04:49 »
Yes, make it so. Although I would settle for the original plan ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... n#JudgmentJudgment
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. Judgment was split in two parts.
On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.
On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.
Naturally the outgoing Clinton-Reno DoJ and the incoming Bush-Ashcroft DoJ weren't on the same page. Microsoft "negotiated" a settlement that kept them intact. That settlement ran out a couple of years back and here they are once again, flaunting their OS on
non-Microsoft computers with a store and no sideloading.
Break these assholes up, just get that OS division outside of Redmond with no backchannel communication with Office, Software, Tools, or anyone else. It's so goddamn simple.
I couldn't care less about their other stuff, but the OS, be it Windows, Server, whatever, when used on non-Microsoft computers is a 3rd party OS, a guest, and must be neutral.
Yes, make it so. Although I would settle for the original plan ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation#Judgment
[color=brown][quote][b]Judgment[/b]
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. Judgment was split in two parts.
On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.
[b]On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.[/b][/quote][/color]
Naturally the outgoing Clinton-Reno DoJ and the incoming Bush-Ashcroft DoJ weren't on the same page. Microsoft "negotiated" a settlement that kept them intact. That settlement ran out a couple of years back and here they are once again, flaunting their OS on [b]non-Microsoft[/b] computers with a store and no sideloading.
Break these assholes up, just get that OS division outside of Redmond with no backchannel communication with Office, Software, Tools, or anyone else. It's so goddamn simple.
I couldn't care less about their other stuff, but the OS, be it Windows, Server, whatever, when used on non-Microsoft computers is a 3rd party OS, a guest, and must be neutral.