5 ms·

Yes?

lapcat 3y ago
You could read Wikipedia rather than asking on HN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- whynotminot 3y ago
  lol I did, which is why I replied skeptically because it says Microsoft had most of it overturned on appeal.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Did you read the part that said, "The case was remanded back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on this matter, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding." That's not a win. The case was ongoing, and likely would have gone to the Supreme Court eventually, though the court was too cowardly to take the case immediately. There was a settlement with the DoJ. You don't settle when you win and the other side loses.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      sure you do, it's a question of the cost.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        The cost of... what?
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I'm not going to answer that question in any serious way as the answer is extremely obvious. Instead I'm going to ask you a question. Do you suspect that lawyers work for free?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        lapcat 3y ago
        It seems that you're very confused. The OP claimed, mistakenly, that Microsoft won the case. They did not. When two parties settle a case, there is no winner or loser, and the case isn't decided by a judge or jury. The DoJ and Microsoft settled the case. There was no winner or loser. If Microsoft had won the case, then the notion of settlement doesn't even make sense. And depending on the law and jurisdiction, legal fees can be awarded to the winner of a case. But with a settlement, one party doesn't usually pay the other party's legal expenses as a stipulation; that would be weird. So I really don't know what in the world you're talking about, and maybe you don't either. The question here is a simple factual one: Did Microsoft win the case? No, they did not. The OP's assertion was wrong. You seem to be contemplating a different question, namely, does it make sense for parties to settle before going to judgement, which is why you think the answer is "extremely obvious". And of course it makes sense to settle, which is precisely what Microsoft and the DoJ did. They settled. Microsoft did not win. When you win, you don't settle. And the issue of legal expenses is irrelevant to the question of whether Microsoft won or not.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        not so much confused as I understand English. Another definition for win is to achieve victory. The bells got split up, MS settled with the DOJ and got a small slap on the wrist. The other poster considers that a victory (as do most people).
        lapcat 3y ago
        The word "win" does have more than one meaning, a collquial one an a legal one. Nonetheless, whynotminot clearly meant it in the legal sense. drooopy: "Nearly twenty five years ago, the DoJ nearly split Microsoft into two companies" whynotminot: "Didn’t Microsoft win that case?" We all know that Microsoft was not split into two companies. That was even stipulated by "nearly" in the initial post. That was obviously a "win" in the colloquial sense, so if that was the intended meaning, then why would whynotminot have even posed a question in the first place? There was no question. Yes, Microsoft "won", colloquially, and just got a slap on the wrist. That was the very background and context of the initial post by drooopy. So no, you're mistaken about which sense of "win" was under question. The question would have been phrased differently if it was meant in the colloquial sense, something like, "Didn't Microsoft win in that settlement?" But really, nobody would even phrase that as a tentative question rather than as a statement, because obviously Microsoft came out very well in the settlement, and besides, that was never in dispute with the original post by drooopy, because drooopy was lamenting the fact that monopolists have faced no consequences. Your interpretation of the conversation makes no sense. Furthermore, whynotminot specifically said, in reference to the Wikipedia article about US v. Microsoft, "which is why I replied skeptically because it says Microsoft had most of it overturned on appeal." This again points to the legal sense of win.

Yes?

You could read Wikipedia rather than asking on HN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

whynotminot 3y ago
lol I did, which is why I replied skeptically because it says Microsoft had most of it overturned on appeal.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Did you read the part that said, "The case was remanded back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on this matter, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding." That's not a win. The case was ongoing, and likely would have gone to the Supreme Court eventually, though the court was too cowardly to take the case immediately. There was a settlement with the DoJ. You don't settle when you win and the other side loses.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    sure you do, it's a question of the cost.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      The cost of... what?
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I'm not going to answer that question in any serious way as the answer is extremely obvious. Instead I'm going to ask you a question. Do you suspect that lawyers work for free?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        lapcat 3y ago
        It seems that you're very confused. The OP claimed, mistakenly, that Microsoft won the case. They did not. When two parties settle a case, there is no winner or loser, and the case isn't decided by a judge or jury. The DoJ and Microsoft settled the case. There was no winner or loser. If Microsoft had won the case, then the notion of settlement doesn't even make sense. And depending on the law and jurisdiction, legal fees can be awarded to the winner of a case. But with a settlement, one party doesn't usually pay the other party's legal expenses as a stipulation; that would be weird. So I really don't know what in the world you're talking about, and maybe you don't either. The question here is a simple factual one: Did Microsoft win the case? No, they did not. The OP's assertion was wrong. You seem to be contemplating a different question, namely, does it make sense for parties to settle before going to judgement, which is why you think the answer is "extremely obvious". And of course it makes sense to settle, which is precisely what Microsoft and the DoJ did. They settled. Microsoft did not win. When you win, you don't settle. And the issue of legal expenses is irrelevant to the question of whether Microsoft won or not.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        not so much confused as I understand English. Another definition for win is to achieve victory. The bells got split up, MS settled with the DOJ and got a small slap on the wrist. The other poster considers that a victory (as do most people).
        lapcat 3y ago
        The word "win" does have more than one meaning, a collquial one an a legal one. Nonetheless, whynotminot clearly meant it in the legal sense. drooopy: "Nearly twenty five years ago, the DoJ nearly split Microsoft into two companies" whynotminot: "Didn’t Microsoft win that case?" We all know that Microsoft was not split into two companies. That was even stipulated by "nearly" in the initial post. That was obviously a "win" in the colloquial sense, so if that was the intended meaning, then why would whynotminot have even posed a question in the first place? There was no question. Yes, Microsoft "won", colloquially, and just got a slap on the wrist. That was the very background and context of the initial post by drooopy. So no, you're mistaken about which sense of "win" was under question. The question would have been phrased differently if it was meant in the colloquial sense, something like, "Didn't Microsoft win in that settlement?" But really, nobody would even phrase that as a tentative question rather than as a statement, because obviously Microsoft came out very well in the settlement, and besides, that was never in dispute with the original post by drooopy, because drooopy was lamenting the fact that monopolists have faced no consequences. Your interpretation of the conversation makes no sense. Furthermore, whynotminot specifically said, in reference to the Wikipedia article about US v. Microsoft, "which is why I replied skeptically because it says Microsoft had most of it overturned on appeal." This again points to the legal sense of win.