RSSStates Petition Federal Judge to Extend Microsoft Antitrust Oversight
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 11, 2007, 5:03 PM
When the US Dept. of Justice and the New York State Attorney General's office on August 31 issued their joint status report, along with Microsoft, on the progress of its antitrust oversight, they acknowledged that period is due to expire this November. But in a statement, the DOJ said it would petition to extend its oversight period for another two years until late 2009, at least with regard to its protocol licensing operation if not the entire company. Microsoft agreed to that extension, the statement added.
Now, in a petition before US District Judge Kathleen Kollar-Kotelly, the State of California, along with five other states and the District of Columbia, said they would ask US District Judge Kollar-Kotelly to extend all the provisions of government oversight to 2012, in a status meeting scheduled for today.
Under the terms of the original DOJ/Microsoft settlement, state and federal governments would have the right to petition to extend the oversight period to 2012...in 2009, assuming the 2007 period was already extended. Since Microsoft does not appear to be objecting, that first extension appears likely.
With a critical decision on Microsoft's recent competitive conduct from Europe's Court of First Instance due on Monday, Microsoft wants to be seen as cooperating with governments for fairness and interoperability, especially if it can avoid more potent regulation from government bodies.
Representatives of the European Commission have claimed the right to order a breakup of Microsoft if the Court of First Instance concludes Microsoft acted to deceive or circumvent the EC in its handling of its original antitrust Statement of Objections. At best, such an order would restrict Microsoft to being able to conduct business in Europe as several companies rather than as one.
So it is important that Microsoft be perceived as cooperating, which is why a government lawyer's account - according to the Associated Press - that Windows Vista was tested by its experts and found to be compliant with the settlement order, is very welcome news for the company. Representing the State of California, attorney Andrew Houck reportedly did not argue with the government's findings on Vista, but said a long-term extension of the oversight period was necessary in order to guarantee Microsoft maintains its good conduct.
By late afternoon, the US District Court for D.C. had yet to issue a statement or formal notice on today's status hearing.
Representing the State of California, attorney Andrew Houck reportedly did not argue with the government's findings on Vista, but said a long-term extension of the oversight period was necessary in order to guarantee Microsoft maintains its good conduct.
Do we keep prisoners in jail after their sentence is completed "just in case"?
No?
Do we take people back to court to defend themselves against further sentencing after they've already been tried and sentenced for it once?
No?
Then I gotta ask...
What the hell do you think you are doing, Andrew Houck?? You *admit* they've complied. Sentence completed, job done. Find something else to whine about.
Score: 0
|"Do we keep prisoners in jail after their sentence is completed "just in case"?"
Maybe not, but in the case of certain prisoners who have served their time and paid their debt to society, such as adult sex offenders, we prevent them from exercising many of their civil liberties, such as the right to choose where to live, and their privacy by forcing them to register and have their names and addresses published on public law enforcement web sites.
"Do we take people back to court to defend themselves against further sentencing after they've already been tried and sentenced for it once?"
Yes we do. If you were tried for having murdered a member of my family and found innocent by a jury of your peers, I could still bring a "wrongful death suit" against you thereby placing you in the position of being the defendant yet again; and if I were to win the suit, I could access your finances & property for the rest of your life...even after the jury had found that you DID NOT commit the crime !
If they can do those things to you & me, then why not Microsoft ?
Score: 0
|Maybe not, but in the case of certain prisoners who have served their time and paid their debt to society, such as adult sex offenders, we prevent them from exercising many of their civil liberties, such as the right to choose where to live, and their privacy by forcing them to register and have their names and addresses published on public law enforcement web sites.
So MS sexually offended someone?
Yes we do. If you were tried for having murdered a member of my family and found innocent by a jury of your peers, I could still bring a "wrongful death suit" against you thereby placing you in the position of being the defendant yet again
2 different suits, one for Murder, one for Wrongful death. The distinction does not apply to this case at all.
If they can do those things to you & me, then why not Microsoft ?
The moment MS begins molesting children and murdering our family members, I'm with you.
Until then, not so much...
Score: 0
|What! They don't trust Microsoft? What a bunch of ingrates.
Score: 0
|Yes
Score: 0
|Yes, that's a good news.
Score: 0
|