Iowa clbutt action steams ahead
This could be an interesting case. Keep in mind that Judge Kolar-Kotelley specifically structured her judgement so that cases like this could be filed. Because the Judge did not impose a structural settlement, such as breaking up the company, she chose not to attempt to implement a blanket set of business practice restrictions. Instead, she only imposed those restrictions which were a direct response to evidence presented in the Microsoft trial. At the same time, she specifically stated that any OTHER practices which Microsoft used to exclude compebreastors, could and should be the grounds for additional lawsuits and additional judgements against Microsoft.
U.S. says, "We own the Internet" 13267
begin oeprotect.scr I see no reason to trust the US. Can you supply any reason why the net...
The good news for these plaintiffs is that they not only have a very good chance of winning, but they can even expand the clbutt, and the scope, of both the clbutt action, and the practices being used. Furthermore, if they DON'T agree to let the records be sealed, there is a very good possibility that Microsoft executives could be facing criminal charges.
U.S. says, "We own the Internet
10-31-2005 How about being thrown out of the USAF for wearing religiously required head gear? How about being required to attend religous indoctrination? How...
The primary challenge will be to have the evidence admitted, and made part of the official judicial record. The judge could rule that some of the evidence was inadmissible, and could rule that some of the evidence was not relevant. On the other hand, if names, dates, meetings, and correspondence can be identified and forced into public disclosure, the clbutt could get very large. Moreover, because these are NEW claims, based on NEW illegal acts, based on the same rulings of law issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the Appellate court, and Judge Kotelley, rulings which Microsoft implicitly accepted, the rulings themselves cannot be challenged.
Micros~1 is learning from Linux
wrote on 26 Oct 2005 07:39:29 -0700 That works if one doesn't play "swap-n-mutate". Presumably we'll want to extend that concept. Many are...
Microsoft would either have to prove, to the judge or jury's satisfaction that they are no longer a monopoly (actually providing evidence that Linux is doing far better than they want to admit), or they will have to prove that they did not actually do the acts listed in their initial charges. Furthermore, disclosures of this sort can be expanded as discovery leads to the discovery of more illegal acts.
The final defense may be the Harriot Miers defense, attempting to diffuse the clbutt, then using EULA clauses to evade Debt Collection of the actual penalties. The challenge will be to keep the victims named on the lawsuit from signing settlements with Microsoft on their own behalf that result in having their testimony sealed.
The third possibility is that the evidence presented and discovered during discovery, combined with a release of the gag order - which will prevent Microsoft from obstructing justice by allowing customers, clients, partners, and employees to speak ONLY with a MICROSOFT attorney present. During the Anbreastrust case, there were hundreds of people who came forward and submitted over 600 briefs and depositions, describing a number of illegal activities. I believe that those disclosures are still part of the public record.
On the other hand, it's probably a bad idea for the Linux community to try and "stay below the RADAR" and sit back while Microsoft continues to try to claim that they still have 95% of the market. The Linux community and Microsoft's compebreastors should continue to do everything possible to take as many different markets as possible, and to hack away at Microsoft's markets and monopolies every way possible.
The Linux community should push to have Linux installed as the host to a Microsoft VM (VMWare, Xen, bochs...) Client, they should push to be included as a Microsoft Virtual PC client on "Linux Hostile" hardware.
Corporate customers should continue to test for and demand Linux compatible hardware, and should be as aggressive as possible in getting Linux clients installed on Windows workstations, or getting Linux installed as the primary and running Windows as a Client VM or emulation.
U.S. says, "We own the Internet" 13266
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:55:34 +0100, Mark Kent It is a shame the U.N hasn't stopped the genocide in Europe and Africa. It is a...
Corporate customers should stop painting themselves into a corner simply because Microsoft is promising that some day, in the next release,, that all of the problems that have plagued Microsoft for 30 years, will suddenly go away.
The real plaintiffs should probably be the corporate customers, the government agencies, and the school systems who have been strong-armed into maintaining the Microsoft monopoly because of Microsoft's use of fraud, extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice.
Of course, they aren't going to try to take on Microsoft directly, even in a clbutt action lawsuit. This is why the Linux community should continue to make it as painless as possible for these organizations to migrate to Linux as quickly and effortlessly as possible - BEFORE Longhorn-Vista comes out and Microsoft tries to triple the prices - again.