David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
snipped the usual Microsoft defender nonsense
The federal appeals court wrote:
"...we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."
"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."
"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."
"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."
"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."
"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."
"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."
Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.telu splanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp .kabelfoon.nl!138.199.65.86.MISMATCH!sn-ams-06!sn-ams-04!sn-post-ams-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:03:30 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11pssi349vi9v0e corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com 11miosfrti53nca corp.supernews.com Xns9703E13A2C879follydom 207.115.17.102 heslm1h5ardae6t559rsuoccbki3b7k4pd 4ax.com 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com 11mo3gvnmrp1r76 corp.supernews.com Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 148
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229890 sci.electronics.repair:432950 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452606