“The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.’s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft’s own music player software,” The Associated Press reports. “Microsoft abandoned the idea after a competitor protested.”
“In a rare display of indignation, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly demanded an explanation from Microsoft’s lawyers and told them, ‘This should not be happening.’ Legal and industry experts said Microsoft’s demands probably would have violated a landmark antitrust settlement the same judge approved in 2002 between the company and the Bush administration. The government and Microsoft disclosed details of the dispute in a court document last week,” AP reports.
“The judge said Microsoft’s music-player proposal – even though it was abandoned 10 days later – ‘maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process.’ She made her remarks during a previously scheduled court hearing to review the adequacy of the settlement,” AP reports. “The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as ‘easy start,’ would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.’s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft’s own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.”
Full article here.
Advertisements: The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. Buy it now at the Apple Store. From $299. Free shipping.
Apple iPod nano. 1,000 songs. Impossibly small. From $199. Free shipping.
Related article:
After protest, Microsoft backs off on exclusive music contracts – October 20, 2005
Who watches the Sopranos when you could watch Microsoft. Point is, a threat was made and withdrawn; it’s intimidation — triad and mafia style. I say, throw the book at ’em: How to win friends and intimidate people. Wait, that doesn’t sound right.
Ok guys this is NOT the right forum for this, we’re discussing Microsoft here.
“Opinions like yours are why the Nazi’s murdered 6 million in Germany and the Soviets their 10 million in Russia. People stood by while genocide was commited and did nothing to stop it.”
Okay, first, I invoke Godwin’s Law. Sorry, but you just lost.
Normally, I stay out of these things, but this one just got me:
“If the US were in the hands of a dictator who gassed entire cities, my bet is that you’d BE THE 1ST IN LINE. begging for someone to come and stop the killing.”
Fair enough. But there is plenty of reason to believe that Hussein never gassed the Kurds. First, the Iraq army used persistent chemical weapons, namely VX. The Kurds in the city Halabja were gassed using a non-persistent agent during the war with Iran. Guess which country used non-persistent gas during the war? That’s right, Iran. In fact, the pictures of gassed Kurds came from Iran. Since they were fighting a war with Iraq, do you really think they were giving out reliable information?
In fact, the US Army said that it was Iran–not Iraq–that gassed the city of Halabja. You’re telling me that you believe Iranian propaganda–remember that this happened during the Iraq/Iran war–over the US Army?
“Grow up.”
Learn the facts.
This would be hilarious, if it wasnt so true >>
http://www.arnoldsneighborhood.com/
Before going off on the President, have you forgotten the innocents murdered by Clinton and his NATO lackeys? They carpet-bombed the capital of Yugslavia for weeks. INNOCENT factory workers SLAUGHTERED.
Peter,
First of all, you are attributing more to Godwin’s law than is there. If you didn’t know that already, you should have at least read your own link. There is no actual “you lose” factor to the law, nor has there ever been.
Secondly, when discussing mass genocide it seems quite relevant to mention the Nazis, don’t you think? In such a case, it is a legitimate reference point, which negates your invocation of the “you lose” rule in its understood form.
“First of all, you are attributing more to Godwin’s law than is there. If you didn’t know that already, you should have at least read your own link. There is no actual ‘you lose’ factor to the law […]”
I’ll post a link again, since it looks like it might have gotten munged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
To quote the sentence:
“There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison [with Nazis] is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.”
Thus, he loses.
Remember the original context. It’s a variation on the theme, I’ll admit–the writer was comparing him to a “Nazi Sympathizer.” Read the link under “Objections and Counter-Arguments.”
“Secondly, when discussing mass genocide it seems quite relevant to mention the Nazis, don’t you think? In such a case, it is a legitimate reference point, which negates your invocation of the ‘you lose’ rule in its understood form.”
Well, again, I’ll point out the obvious. He was comparing 3,000 deaths during a battle where it is not clear who did the killing with the the planned extermination of 6 million Jews. Hyperbole, much?
Personally, I think Godwin’s Law applies quite nicely.
Amazing how the conservative nut-cases here in this forum go out of their way to make them selves look totally stupid…