Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
by the U$ government?

Microsoft Offered States a Fee Deal
Firm Would Pay Legal Expenses if Case Was Dropped
By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post / R.A.G.U.N.S.

Shortly after a [bribed] federal judge last month approved an
antitrust settlement deal between the Justice Department and Microsoft
Corp., the company's top lawyer approached the California attorney
general's office with a special offer, according to several people
familiar with the conversations.

If California and other states that had challenged the settlement
decided to appeal the judge's ruling, Microsoft would not only fight
the appeal, but also would contest how much in legal costs the states
were entitled to recover from the long-running litigation.

But if the nine states and the District of Columbia decided against an
appeal, Microsoft would cover the states' expenses and provide an
additional pot of funds for the states to help enforce the settlement
deal, the sources said.

After some deliberations, California -- which had agreed to bear most
of the states' legal costs to challenge the agreement -- decided to
accept the offer, along with six other states and the District of
Columbia. On Nov. 29, they announced that Microsoft would pay them a
total of $25 million in legal fees, plus $3.6 million for technical
experts and other resources to help ensure that the software giant
complies with the settlement's terms.

"It was apparent that Microsoft would be generous and not give us any
trouble over fees," said one attorney. "But if any one state did
appeal, the generosity wouldn't be as great, and any appealing state
would not participate in any fee payment."

Massachusetts and West Virginia decided to press on with the case and
will have to seek court costs whenever their appeal is concluded.

But some legal experts, as well as Microsoft's corporate rivals, said
the other states gave up an important opportunity to appeal the
ruling, arguing that the judge erred in not forcing Microsoft to
disgorge the fruits of its illegal practices. They worry that
Microsoft was able to use its financial resources to help persuade the
states.

"Microsoft makes $25 million in a morning's work," said Edward Black,
head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade
group that opposes Microsoft in the case.

The states that took the deal said that it was time to end litigation
and focus on enforcing the settlement, which imposed a series of
restrictions on Microsoft's business practices after it was found to
have illegally protected its monopoly Windows operating system.

"The case exposed the company's illegal practices, and now the world
looks differently at Microsoft," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
announced at the time. "We will be vigilant and hold the company to
compliance."

In an interview yesterday, Miller said that the issues of fees was
incidental to the states' decision.

"We had already decided to go the enforcement route" rather than
appeal, he said. "At that point, we felt they should be willing to
deal with fees, and they agreed."

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler declined to comment on specific company
negotiations but said they were a part of the company's efforts to
"move past the adversarial role and build a more constructive
relationship with state governments."

Microsoft had made similar offers to several states throughout the
course of the case.

Williams & Connolly, the Washington, D.C., firm that handled the
state's challenge, had determined there were grounds for appeal,
according to sources. But the states had received varying legal
opinions on the chances for successful appeal, according to one state
attorney.

And states everywhere are facing severe budget crises. The costs on
continuing litigation, as well as chances for success, should always
be factored into any decision on pursuing a case, the attorney said.

In his press release announcing his decision to appeal, West Virginia
Attorney General Darrel V. McGraw made veiled reference to the
financial issues and the decision of his colleagues to drop the case.

"No reputable government should plead poverty and allow an adjudicated
lawbreaker to retain their ill-gotten gains," McGraw said.

Deborah Rhode, a professor of legal ethics at Stanford University,
said that such negotiations, while not a "pretty practice," are not
unusual in corporate litigation. She added that the U.S. Supreme Court
has affirmed the propriety of simultaneous negotiations over fees and
legal issues.

The breakdown of the $25 million in legal fees -- including how much
each state will receive -- has not been made available by the states,
which were still exchanging documents with Microsoft last night.

But state sources confirmed that the fee for Williams & Connolly was
about $10.07 million.

The firm had multiple attorneys working intensively on the case from
November 2001 through June of this year, with more than a month of
trial days.

It is not clear if the firm will handle the appeal for Massachusetts,
whose attorneys did not return calls for comment. A Williams &
Connolly attorney involved in the case had no comment.

The other $15 million in expenses by the states was incurred over
several years of the case and included payments for outside technical
and economic experts. States also can bill time for their staff
attorneys at private rates.

Report this post to a moderator

> Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> by the U$ government?

I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
evidence is this based on?

Report this post to a moderator

_

Mr-T wrote:

> > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> > by the U$ government?
>
> I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
> evidence is this based on?

Ummm?_ I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
_

Report this post to a moderator

Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.


"Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
|
|
| Mr-T wrote:
|
| > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
| > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
| > > by the U$ government?
| >
| > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
| > evidence is this based on?
|
| Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
|
|

Report this post to a moderator

_

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.

I wasn't aware that Microshaft owned the internet...When did Al gore sell out?

> _
>
> "Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
> news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
> |
> |
> | Mr-T wrote:
> |
> | > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
> | > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be protected
> | > > by the U$ government?
> | >
> | > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal? What
> | > evidence is this based on?
> |
> | Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
> |
> |

Report this post to a moderator

The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers that
carry this newsgroup.

Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
activities.


"Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3DFCB750.DCC64300@amerion.com...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Sure is nice of MS to provide you a free forum for your rants.
|
| I wasn't aware that Microshaft owned the internet...When did Al gore sell
out?
|
| >
| >
| > "Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
| > news:3DFCA3BF.4327C9DD@amerion.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | Mr-T wrote:
| > |
| > | > > Why should this company that sells junk, hinders innovation, and
| > | > > destroys businesses through ILLEGAL monopolistic tactics be
protected
| > | > > by the U$ government?
| > | >
| > | > I don't like Microsoft, but what have they done that is illegal?
What
| > | > evidence is this based on?
| > |
| > | Ummm? I take it you have been off the planet for the last 8 years....
| > |
| > |
|

Report this post to a moderator

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
> that carry this newsgroup.
>
> Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
> activities.

That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.

Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
and correct your mis-understanding.

-DU-...etc...

Report this post to a moderator

Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
a Microsoft owned domain.
I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work just
as well as would netzero.

There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using some
other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
the space used on servers as public service.


"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
| > that carry this newsgroup.
| >
| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
| > activities.
|
| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
|
| Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
| and correct your mis-understanding.
|
| -DU-...etc...

Report this post to a moderator

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:37:47 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
<p51mustang36@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
>a Microsoft owned domain.
>I use Hotmail as a logon to the news server, but Yahoo mail would work just
>as well as would netzero.
>
>There a great deal of co-hosting of newsgroups...perhaps you are using some
>other server to get the MS news groups, but at the base, MS is paying for
>the space used on servers as public service.

No, they are not. Every ISP has to shoulder the load for disk space
usage on its own.

You need to read that FAQ.

>"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote in message
>newsan.2002.12.15.09.26.04.464690.3060@nospamremarque.org...
>| On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 06:22:44 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
>|
>| > The Internet was created by DARPA and others. But MS owns the servers
>| > that carry this newsgroup.
>| >
>| > Al Gore sold out many years ago when he started to cover for WJC sexual
>| > activities.
>|
>| That is completely incorrect. Your hotmail account ALLOWS YOU access to
>| this newsgroup. hotmail.com is only one of thousands of news servers all
>| over the world. Not one of those servers "owns" Usenet News. If you look
>| at the headers you will notice that Don was posting from amerion.com. I
>| don't know for sure but I doubt amerion.com is owned by MS.
>|
>| Perhaps you should read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
>| and correct your mis-understanding.
>|
>| -DU-...etc...
>

Report this post to a moderator

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Hotmail is owned by MS...my news server is msnews.microsoft.com and that is
> a Microsoft owned domain.
You CHOOSE to use servers owned and operated by microsoft.
M$ does not own usenet, you have chosen to read in using M$ services.
There's a difference.

Report this post to a moderator