5 ms·

no, but it is a crime to use a monopoly in one area to help squash rivals in other areas, and that's what microsoft was convicted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/

no, but it is a crime to use a monopoly in one area to help squash rivals in other areas, and that's what microsoft was convicted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

dantheman 17y ago
Which is a bad law, that doesn't make sense and was created to cleanup the governments interference in train system. It's like saying someone who broke laws during the civil rights era, to integrate their establishments etc... being convicted of a bad law is meaningless.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  so you're defending microsoft's actions, then? were you in the software business circa 1992? quite a few companies who thought they were creating good businesses for themselves were in fact doing market research for microsoft, to mangle something pg said in one of his essays. microsoft's antics managed to retard software innovation for a good long while. i, for one, am glad they are no longer the unstoppable juggernaut they once were.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I'm not defending their actions; I'm saying what they were doing should be legal. Lots of things are legal that I don't agree with, for instance I don't agree lots of ideas that are expressed in music but I by no means think they should be illegal.
sid0 17y ago
No, it's not a crime, and Microsoft was not convicted. US v. Microsoft was a civil suit. Please use the correct terms to describe things.
- pohl 17y ago
  In his Conclusions of Law, Judge Jackson showed them to be in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by being a monopoly and engaging in tying. A 'crime' is an act in violation of law, the Sherman Act is a law, and they were in violation of it. How are these facts changed by the case being brought before the court as a civil action?
  - sid0 17y ago
    > A 'crime' is an act in violation of law No. A crime is an act in violation of criminal law. From wiki (apologies in advance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime -- "While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime."
    - allenbrunson 17y ago
      surely you don't want to "win" via nitpicking. that would be a hollow victory at best, i think. i chose the word "crime" because the comment i was replying to used it.
      - sid0 17y ago
        I don't want to "win" anything. I just want people to use the right word for the right thing. The word crime has very different connotations for me than the words civil suit do, and it really disturbs me when people substitute one for the other. Let's reserve the word crime for acts like rape and murder, please.
    - pohl 17y ago
      It is true that while every violation of civil law comes before the court as a civil action, but is it true that the existence of a civil action implies that no crime was committed? Your mention of murder down-thread is an excellent example, as someone can commit an act of murder and face a criminal murder trial and/or a civil "wrongful death" case. O.J. Simpson is a famous, high-profile example of this. You are basically taking the same position that his P.R. people might: that since he was acquitted in the criminal case, he is not a criminal - even though he lost the civil case. Yes, in the "innocent until proven guilty" sense of the word "criminal", you and they have an excellent technical point. But you and they would have us to believe that O.J. actually committed no crime, and that might work on anyone who does not reserve the right to draw a distinction between having committed a crime and having been convicted of it. Back to Microsoft, ask yourself what the Sherman Act is: is it civil law or criminal law? As it happens, the Sherman Act includes both criminal and civil remedies for violations. That is why, for example, books like this exist... http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Antitrust-Litigation-Handbook-Second/dp/1590313690 http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Antitrust-Litigation-Handbook... The DoJ pressed the matter as a civil action. This doesn't mean that Microsoft's violations were merely civil violations. Rather, it means that the civil violations were the ones that were successfully prosecuted. Whether or not their violations were also criminal in nature is a question that was never pursued. So, yeah, Microsoft's actions were non-criminal an an O.J. kind of way. I'll give you that.

dantheman 17y ago

Which is a bad law, that doesn't make sense and was created to cleanup the governments interference in train system. It's like saying someone who broke laws during the civil rights era, to integrate their establishments etc... being convicted of a bad law is meaningless.

allenbrunson 17y ago
so you're defending microsoft's actions, then? were you in the software business circa 1992? quite a few companies who thought they were creating good businesses for themselves were in fact doing market research for microsoft, to mangle something pg said in one of his essays. microsoft's antics managed to retard software innovation for a good long while. i, for one, am glad they are no longer the unstoppable juggernaut they once were.
- dantheman 17y ago
  I'm not defending their actions; I'm saying what they were doing should be legal. Lots of things are legal that I don't agree with, for instance I don't agree lots of ideas that are expressed in music but I by no means think they should be illegal.

sid0 17y ago

No, it's not a crime, and Microsoft was not convicted. US v. Microsoft was a civil suit. Please use the correct terms to describe things.

pohl 17y ago
In his Conclusions of Law, Judge Jackson showed them to be in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by being a monopoly and engaging in tying. A 'crime' is an act in violation of law, the Sherman Act is a law, and they were in violation of it. How are these facts changed by the case being brought before the court as a civil action?
- sid0 17y ago
  > A 'crime' is an act in violation of law No. A crime is an act in violation of criminal law. From wiki (apologies in advance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime -- "While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime."
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    surely you don't want to "win" via nitpicking. that would be a hollow victory at best, i think. i chose the word "crime" because the comment i was replying to used it.
    - sid0 17y ago
      I don't want to "win" anything. I just want people to use the right word for the right thing. The word crime has very different connotations for me than the words civil suit do, and it really disturbs me when people substitute one for the other. Let's reserve the word crime for acts like rape and murder, please.
  - pohl 17y ago
    It is true that while every violation of civil law comes before the court as a civil action, but is it true that the existence of a civil action implies that no crime was committed? Your mention of murder down-thread is an excellent example, as someone can commit an act of murder and face a criminal murder trial and/or a civil "wrongful death" case. O.J. Simpson is a famous, high-profile example of this. You are basically taking the same position that his P.R. people might: that since he was acquitted in the criminal case, he is not a criminal - even though he lost the civil case. Yes, in the "innocent until proven guilty" sense of the word "criminal", you and they have an excellent technical point. But you and they would have us to believe that O.J. actually committed no crime, and that might work on anyone who does not reserve the right to draw a distinction between having committed a crime and having been convicted of it. Back to Microsoft, ask yourself what the Sherman Act is: is it civil law or criminal law? As it happens, the Sherman Act includes both criminal and civil remedies for violations. That is why, for example, books like this exist... http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Antitrust-Litigation-Handbook-Second/dp/1590313690 http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Antitrust-Litigation-Handbook... The DoJ pressed the matter as a civil action. This doesn't mean that Microsoft's violations were merely civil violations. Rather, it means that the civil violations were the ones that were successfully prosecuted. Whether or not their violations were also criminal in nature is a question that was never pursued. So, yeah, Microsoft's actions were non-criminal an an O.J. kind of way. I'll give you that.