Festool and IWF

Judge Sporkin was overruled by the US Court of Appeals which said the Judge was way off-base in his ruling. The appellate court then barred Sporkin from any further contact with the case.

The judgement of which you speak was reversed, due, in part, to judicial misconduct. Specifically:

"Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality. ... we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process. We are therefore constrained to vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order, and require that the case be assigned to a different trial judge on remand... We vacate in full the Final Judgment embodying the remedial order and remand the case to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Yep. And the verdict was vacated by the US Court of Appeals.

Fat code and lazy programmers, causing the need to buy better (read newer hardware) it is a conspiracy.

;>

No, after 4 years of testimony the judge found the consent decree reached by the DOJ and MS was insufficient and that the damages done to the public did not match the redress sought by the DOJ, so he told the DOJ to re-submit the redress with appropriate penalties. Instead, the DOJ appealed the ruling (the victory, and the curious part of the case, and imo the part that cost MS a ton of money and contributions to the Clinton administration.) This was in 1995, and the testimony began in

Yeah, I said that. How much do you think that cost MS in cash "donations" It would be like you suing Government Motors for damages when their brakes failed, winning 100 million in damages in court, and you appealing your victory, saying you only wanted 1 million in damages.

You are very right, I don't understand that. I don't think you understand that there are anti-trust laws that attempt to protect the public from unethical marketing practices that result in the public getting hosed, and MS is a PERFECT example of why these laws exist.

What you say is usually interesting, but often also ludicrous. Greed is good, monopolies are good, that sort of goofy stuff.

You do realize that if the public is limited to buying w/o competition, the product quality will not develop, prices will not reflect lowest possible, and people will end up running the worlds worst OS on their DT's with a dumb ass grin on their collective faces.

There is one of your ludicrous statements again. Monopoly, what monopoly, I compete with myself. You are special.

If the company does

Yep, that's another problem with monopolies, they can sell pure junk and then update it slightly every once in a while to force people to buy new junk. With normal competition, when something is produced that is 100's of times better and rock solid, you either keep up or go under. When it doesn't work that way, you know something is amiss, just as the good judge Sporkin correctly determined 17 years ago.

Yes, and the public continues to be punished with inferior junk, whilst MS reaps 30% profit margins.

Quit pretending dead fish don't stink!

like the above. The real truth is this:

Sporkin's most controversial decision came in 1995 in one of the most widely followed antitrust cases of the decade. Following a four-year investigation, the Department of Justice had entered an agreement with computer software giant Microsoft, Inc., to reform licensing practices that the department said were monopolistic. Under provisions in the Tunney Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 16(e) [1988]), Sporkin had the authority to review the consent decree to determine if it was in the public interest. In addition to criticizing Microsoft during the hearings, he took the rare step of allowing its competitors to file friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) briefs anonymously so as to protect them from retaliation by Microsoft. Ultimately, Sporkin rejected the consent decree as being insufficient and ordered the Justice Department to expand its investigation. (United States v. Microsoft Corp., 159 F.R.D.

In a surprising move, both the Justice Department and Microsoft filed separate appeals.

Not only did both parties win, but Sporkin was removed from the case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for apparent bias; the court then remanded the case to another judge with orders to approve the consent decree (United States v. Microsoft Corp.,

In addition to his uncompromising work as a lawyer and judge, Sporkin has distinguished himself as a legal critic. He has written on the need for separate codes of ethical conduct for various disciplines within the law, urged the adoption of multimedia presentations of evidence in courtrooms, and argued against what he sees as unfairness in the federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.

Quit ignoring glaring effects of illegal marketing, monopolies and graft.

There have been no findings of illegal marketing, monopolistic practices, or graft with regard to Microsoft in the US.

It's apparent you: a) Don't like Microsoft (that's okay, a lot of people don't) b) Are convinced Microsoft is evil, and c) When the legal system moves contrary to your view, you invent convoluted reasons for these legal decisions.

Carl Jung, the 19th century Swiss psychologist, theorized that when the human brain is confronted by circumstances it cannot understand or accept, it will create an alternate explanation to fit the facts, no matter how bizarre the alternate explanation might be.

You are wishing for fishes.

Yep. And 90% of the desktop software got there by people who voted with their money. There are alternatives: Apple's Macintosh (but you have to join the religion to participate). And there's Linux which is a knock-off of a

Take your pick.

Article I, Section 8 "[The Congress shall have the power...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective writings and Discoveries."

Forgive me, but I don't see how MS is an example of why these anti-trust laws exist inasmuch as MS has never been found guilty of violating them.

Heh! So explain Kerosene.

Huh? I didn't say "what monopoly?" I agree that Microsoft is closeto being, if not an acutal, monopoly. So what?

1. The DC Court of Appeals said Sporkin was wrong, biased, and violated several canons of judicial ethics. That you continue to offer the ramblings of such a fool puts you on the wrong side of reason.
2. Nobody is forced to buy any offering of Microsoft. Period. In fact, nobody actually WANTS a Microsoft product. What they WANT is what the product delivers.
3. Many, many times in the real world, a product or service does not thrive because of the qualities you mention. A product or service becomes a winner, often, by the marketing and sales prowess of its makers. Like it or not, that's the way our economy works.

From an old aphorism: "If wishes were fishes, the sea would be full." Similar to "If wishes were horses, the poor would all ride."

Last time I "genuflected" was after a golf cart accident in which I survived with no injury. My Roman Catholic golfing buddy went nuts. "Glory be," he said. "You've seen the light!"

"No," said I. "I was checking my watch and my wallet, my spectacles and my testicles."

False, Judge Sporkin, and established administrative law judge found exactly that. Moreover, the effects of these monopolistic practices has been, and is in front of your face for many, many years. No amount of legal proceedings or chicanery can alter that simple fact.

I have zero feeling about MS. I don't like their OS because it is crap.

I am convinced MS is making 30% profit on a junk product that everyone (90+ percent DT's) is using. Since I know there have been much, much better products out there, and I know first hand these products were not readily available to the public, and I know that in normal competitive markets, this cannot happen, something was amiss. Turns out plenty of others were also aware, and took MS to court, and after 4 years of testimony, the Judge hearing the testimony thought exactly as I and many others. (2+2=4).

The legal system only confirmed my view, and plenty of others view on the subject. What happened after that is quite obvious, when the victor in a hearing appeals the ruling. (2+2=7) You can't deal with that, that's your problem.

Henry Wallace said ?Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion."

You are in denial.

Yes, 90% of the people voted to use the worlds worst OS. They voted in the dark because of monopolistic practices of MS, clearly demonstrated by 4 years of testimony in front of an administrative law judge, who was aghast at the depth of MS's chicanery. He was the last to know, everyone else with experience and interest already was well aware of the obvious.

There are alternatives: Apple's Macintosh (but you have to join

Yawn!

What do you not understand? Sporkin's ruling was vacated in a stunning rebuke of his activities, evident bias, and judicial misconduct. When a decision is vacated, it never happened.

And, again, the judge's ruling was struck down by the appellate court - by judges more fair and temperate than he.

It is not rational to hold up Sporkin's decision as indicative of anything other than judicial misconduct.