|Subject:||Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy|
|Date:||Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:35:17 -0500|
"Rjack" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message ccadnUbMe4a-KObUnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com">news:ccadnUbMe4a-KObUnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com...
I don't think that the motivation for the past activities of the DOJ vs Microsoft in the USofA had anything to do with IBM. Rather, they had to do with Janet Reno's difficulties with Orin Hatch and the relations that Hatch had with his pew-mate in SLC, Ray Noorda. Reno was on the spot to grill Al Gore over some fund raising on Federal property/time issues and came up with a case against Microsoft as a sort of reward for Hatch quietly dropping the subpoenas and investigation into Gore's activities. They got somewhat slapped in the face by a not-so-humble Microsoft and that instigated the retaliatory States and DOJ case.I may be that the Obama administration won't initiate action spontaneously but you can bet that Big Blue will stir the pot any way it can. IBM is the biggest agitator in the EU and I'm sure they'll test the waters with the new Obama administration.
That case established a lot of findings of fact and law that overall resulted in very little damage to Microsoft in regard to antitrust. They paid a lot of money for resultant civil class action suits over pricing, but, as far as I know, those are all over now. Going forward, there is not much that has not already been adjudicated over Microsoft's market position and business activities. They are not doing anything to violate the court orders of 2002, so there is nothing much that IBM could complain about or that the DOJ could take action in regard to. Any tieing or monopoly leveraging claims regarding IE cannot be filed due to the dismissal with predjudice/limits that the DCCCofA established and resulted in all such claims being dropped by the States and DOJ.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|