02-16-17 01:02 AM
368 ... 131415
tools
  1. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    Dude, from Wikipedia:

    "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."

    Posted via CB10
    So what? Didn't I say they settled to avoid litigating the remedy? The judge determined that Microsoft acted as a monopoly.

    It is possible to be declared a monopoly even with other players in your market. So some people should not act like they are authorities on antitrust law.

    Posted via CB10
    You completely ignored the appeal, which was the final verdict:

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft.
    Time had a decent summary article a few years ago:

    The Microsoft Monopoly Ruling Aftermath: Why Microsoft Didn't Split | Time.com
    02-15-17 07:52 AM
  2. The_Passporter's Avatar
    They settled out of court cause they knew they were going to loose. What else do you need to know. Duh! They were a monopoly end of story

    Posted via CB10
    02-15-17 08:08 AM
  3. Richard Buckley's Avatar
    We almost have to restate Godwin's law for BB10 threads on Crackberry. As any discussion grows longer the odds that it will become about Google approaches 1.

    LeapSTR100-2/10.3.3.2205
    02-15-17 08:22 AM
  4. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    They settled out of court cause they knew they were going to loose. What else do you need to know. Duh! They were a monopoly end of story

    Posted via CB10
    They tried to get the case in front of the Supreme Court, because they knew they would lose?
    02-15-17 08:26 AM
  5. JSmith422's Avatar
    We almost have to restate Godwin's law for BB10 threads on Crackberry. As any discussion grows longer the odds that it will become about Google approaches 1.

    LeapSTR100-2/10.3.3.2205
    Well stated. But that, in and of itself, is perhaps at least anecdotal evidence of Google antitrust behavior....its almost impossible to talk about anything tech related without bumping up against the pervasiveness of Google.

    When the antitrust law was written "way back when" it didn't and couldn't have taken into account modern technology.

    Situations change, times change, and I fully expect some regulator will eventually come in and start putting the screws to Google.....my guess, Google becomes a government regulated "Internet Utility." A legal monopoly, albeit a heavily regulated one. They've done it with just about every other thing Americans have come to rely on as an integral part of their lives.


    Posted via CB10
    02-15-17 03:40 PM
  6. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    Well stated. But that, in and of itself, is perhaps at least anecdotal evidence of Google antitrust behavior....its almost impossible to talk about anything tech related without bumping up against the pervasiveness of Google.

    When the antitrust law was written "way back when" it didn't and couldn't have taken into account modern technology.

    Situations change, times change, and I fully expect some regulator will eventually come in and start putting the screws to Google.....my guess, Google becomes a government regulated "Internet Utility." A legal monopoly, albeit a heavily regulated one. They've done it with just about every other thing Americans have come to rely on as an integral part of their lives.


    Posted via CB10
    Apple too?!?
    02-15-17 03:49 PM
  7. JSmith422's Avatar
    Apple too?!?
    Perhaps, but I doubt it. Apple isn't nearly as pervasive as Google. It's a "luxury products" company....hardly a "utility." The vast majority of the country gets through their day just fine without ever using Apple products and services. That's not true of Google....even for those of us who try and avoid them...I would challenge anyone to try and complete a single day as a normal American without bumping into Google at least once. With the deep market saturation of Android, Google Search, and other interests, heck, you can't even browse most web pages without being monitored by Google. They're so deeply embedded in the American socioeconomic culture and "relied on" to such a degree that any deviation or interruption in services could pose significant and unintended consequences for the country.

    In the words of Ronald Reagan, "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

    Expect regulation of Google at some point.

    Posted via CB10
    02-15-17 06:09 PM
  8. markmall's Avatar
    You completely ignored the appeal, which was the final verdict:



    Time had a decent summary article a few years ago:

    The Microsoft Monopoly Ruling Aftermath: Why Microsoft Didn't Split | Time.com
    I did not mention the appeal because it did not overturn the findings of fact or the determination that Microsoft was a monopoly.

    Did you read the "decent summary" you cited? Here is what it said: "The case found its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Jackson's remedy and accused him of unethical conduct after it was revealed he had private conversations with reporters about the trial while it was still ongoing."

    So the judge's remedy was overturned and he was scolded for something else. But his finding that Microsoft was acting as a monopoly stood.

    Do I get any likes now? Fret?
    02-15-17 07:44 PM
  9. markmall's Avatar
    Well stated. But that, in and of itself, is perhaps at least anecdotal evidence of Google antitrust behavior....its almost impossible to talk about anything tech related without bumping up against the pervasiveness of Google.

    When the antitrust law was written "way back when" it didn't and couldn't have taken into account modern technology.

    Situations change, times change, and I fully expect some regulator will eventually come in and start putting the screws to Google.....my guess, Google becomes a government regulated "Internet Utility." A legal monopoly, albeit a heavily regulated one. They've done it with just about every other thing Americans have come to rely on as an integral part of their lives.


    Posted via CB10
    It's really not that novel to use one business to leverage yourself in another business. If our government can un-corrupt itself, it will put Google in its place.
    02-15-17 07:46 PM
  10. markmall's Avatar
    Perhaps, but I doubt it. Apple isn't nearly as pervasive as Google. It's a "luxury products" company....hardly a "utility." The vast majority of the country gets through their day just fine without ever using Apple products and services. That's not true of Google....even for those of us who try and avoid them...I would challenge anyone to try and complete a single day as a normal American without bumping into Google at least once. With the deep market saturation of Android, Google Search, and other interests, heck, you can't even browse most web pages without being monitored by Google. They're so deeply embedded in the American socioeconomic culture and "relied on" to such a degree that any deviation or interruption in services could pose significant and unintended consequences for the country.

    In the words of Ronald Reagan, "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

    Expect regulation of Google at some point.

    Posted via CB10
    Interesting idea that Google could be regulated that way. I'm not sure if it will ever happen but I see your point. We would have to become much more helpless as a society and rely on Google for everything we do: when to buy more toilet paper, when to go outside to get the self-driving car, when is the baby crying in the other room, etc., etc.

    Even then Google "charges" us with our personal information so maybe it will be more a matter of telling Google what it can and cannot do -- no matter what it puts in the fine print.

    Right now, I think the biggest crime by our government is that it does not regulate what information can be collected and how that information must be protected (to the extent it's even possible).
    02-15-17 07:51 PM
  11. JSmith422's Avatar
    It's really not that novel to use one business to leverage yourself in another business. If our government can un-corrupt itself, it will put Google in its place.
    Haha, "un-corrupt" - that would certainly be a good start.

    Posted via CB10
    02-15-17 07:54 PM
  12. Fret Madden's Avatar
    I did not mention the appeal because it did not overturn the findings of fact or the determination that Microsoft was a monopoly.

    Did you read the "decent summary" you cited? Here is what it said: "The case found its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Jackson's remedy and accused him of unethical conduct after it was revealed he had private conversations with reporters about the trial while it was still ongoing."

    So the judge's remedy was overturned and he was scolded for something else. But his finding that Microsoft was acting as a monopoly stood.

    Do I get any likes now? Fret?
    The sentence preceding your quote:

    Jackson's word was far from final.
    So no, his findings didn't stand, and they went on to the settlement.
    BigBadWulf and DrBoomBotz like this.
    02-15-17 08:30 PM
  13. markmall's Avatar
    The sentence preceding your quote:



    So no, his findings didn't stand, and they went on to the settlement.
    Wrong again.

    This is from a Sept. 10, 2001 Wall Street Journal article published after the appellate court remanded the case back to Judge Jackson. Note the sentence that says that the appeals court "upheld the core of the government's case":

    "The overture comes in response to the government's decision last week to narrow legal issues in the case and not seek a breakup. It will be Microsoft's first substantive effort to settle since a June 28 ruling by the federal appeals court here that upheld the core of the government's case.

    Earlier settlement efforts have failed and the government is continuing to draft a broad set of restrictions on Microsoft's business conduct that it will ask a federal court to impose. These rules are intended to take the place of a breakup, a remedy that was thrown out by the appeals court in June and formally abandoned last week by the Justice Department and 18 states involved in the case."

    So, once again, the appeals court focused on the remedy -- not whether Microsoft was a monopoly or not.

    OK, now show me some likes! I want the whole Android gang to like my accurate post in response to your inaccurate one!
    JSmith422 likes this.
    02-15-17 09:19 PM
  14. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    I did not mention the appeal because it did not overturn the findings of fact or the determination that Microsoft was a monopoly.

    Did you read the "decent summary" you cited? Here is what it said: "The case found its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Jackson's remedy and accused him of unethical conduct after it was revealed he had private conversations with reporters about the trial while it was still ongoing."

    So the judge's remedy was overturned and he was scolded for something else. But his finding that Microsoft was acting as a monopoly stood.

    Do I get any likes now? Fret?
    When you site decenting opinion, to support your argument, I have to give up. What matters isn't that they were considered a monopoly. What matters is the outcome. Another good description of that is here. There are plenty of other articles and college papers on it. No matter how you slice it, Microsoft in the end won. If this is your idea of stopping Google, charge forth.

    Google gets paid to collect anonymous data. Many companies do, but they do it best. Should it be found they are profiteering from personal information, without consent, then there would be a there there. Should it be found, that they paid developers, to not code their apps for any other platform, then there would be a there there. Right now you have a pervasive company, due to it's brilliant business model, who many don't like, but as yet hasn't been proven to cause harm.

    Go ahead...respond. I love a good debate. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong, and have many posts on CrackBerry that prove it. You will fight till the splat, that there was no ledge, because despite the evidence, it was proclaimed absent. Let others be the windmill going forward.
    Fret Madden likes this.
    02-15-17 09:27 PM
  15. markmall's Avatar
    When you site decenting opinion, to support your argument, I have to give up. What matters isn't that they were considered a monopoly. What matters is the outcome. Another good description of that is here. There are plenty of other articles and college papers on it. No matter how you slice it, Microsoft in the end won. If this is your idea of stopping Google, charge forth.

    Google gets paid to collect anonymous data. Many companies do, but they do it best. Should it be found they are profiteering from personal information, without consent, then there would be a there there. Should it be found, that they paid developers, to not code their apps for any other platform, then there would be a there there. Right now you have a pervasive company, due to it's brilliant business model, who many don't like, but as yet hasn't been proven to cause harm.

    Go ahead...respond. I love a good debate. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong, and have many posts on CrackBerry that prove it. You will fight till the splat, that there was no ledge, because despite the evidence, it was proclaimed absent. Let others be the windmill going forward.
    I did not understand all of your post but, again, I never claimed Microsoft suffered a harsh penalty from the antitrust litigation. They were very fortunate that George W. Bush became president because they would have had a much different settlement otherwise.

    Posted via CB10
    02-15-17 09:47 PM
  16. Fret Madden's Avatar
    Wrong again.

    This is from a Sept. 10, 2001 Wall Street Journal article published after the appellate court remanded the case back to Judge Jackson. Note the sentence that says that the appeals court "upheld the core of the government's case":

    "The overture comes in response to the government's decision last week to narrow legal issues in the case and not seek a breakup. It will be Microsoft's first substantive effort to settle since a June 28 ruling by the federal appeals court here that upheld the core of the government's case.

    Earlier settlement efforts have failed and the government is continuing to draft a broad set of restrictions on Microsoft's business conduct that it will ask a federal court to impose. These rules are intended to take the place of a breakup, a remedy that was thrown out by the appeals court in June and formally abandoned last week by the Justice Department and 18 states involved in the case."

    So, once again, the appeals court focused on the remedy -- not whether Microsoft was a monopoly or not.

    OK, now show me some likes! I want the whole Android gang to like my accurate post in response to your inaccurate one!
    And that got tossed out with the settlement November 12th 2002:

    AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgement does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law.
    BB10 is going to see a sunset whether we like it or not, and not because you consider Google and Microsoft monopolies, but because BlackBerry dropped the ball and Google didn't. Google made sound decisions and investments and got rewarded for them. BlackBerry now is trying, but that's not enough to save BB10. It needs an ecosystem that didn't and won't materialize, and that's squarely in the developers' corner. Not Google's.
    02-15-17 11:00 PM
  17. markmall's Avatar
    And that got tossed out with the settlement November 12th 2002:



    BB10 is going to see a sunset whether we like it or not, and not because you consider Google and Microsoft monopolies, but because BlackBerry dropped the ball and Google didn't. Google made sound decisions and investments and got rewarded for them. BlackBerry now is trying, but that's not enough to save BB10. It needs an ecosystem that didn't and won't materialize, and that's squarely in the developers' corner. Not Google's.
    It's called a settlement. That language is standard language in any settlement. Just admit when you and the rest of the Android crusaders are wrong.

    Posted via CB10
    02-16-17 12:41 AM
  18. howarmat's Avatar
    this thread and bb10 have a lot in common.....no future at all! lol
    Elite1 and BigBadWulf like this.
    02-16-17 01:02 AM
368 ... 131415

Similar Threads

  1. 2 versions of Mercury?
    By Who-cut-the-cheese in forum BlackBerry KEYone
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-25-17, 07:01 AM
  2. Help with older version of Chromecast app
    By PSB1 in forum Android Apps (Amazon Store & APK Files)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-19-17, 05:52 AM
  3. 1 Year with the Priv
    By Bfalcon1 in forum BlackBerry Priv
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-18-17, 11:34 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-18-17, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-16-17, 10:13 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD