Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.

message: It's only "an historic" if you can't pronounce "historic" correctly ;-) ... - Khendon 10:29 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
It always seemed to me that "an historic" may survive in England but has died out in the United States.
And since this is an American subject ...
— Toby 07:19 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)
: As far as I'm aware, "an historic" is incorrect. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an historic is recommended by some British style guides (i.e. all words beginning with h+vowel should be treated as if they began with just the vowel). It certainly sounds wrong to my ears, though. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm English, and I would never use such a phrase. I always presumed it was an American spelling... J Milburn 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But hang on; "This is an historic moment for the Russians" and "This is historic moment.." and "This is a historic moment..." Which one of those is correct? I think the first one however I'm not an English expert  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.27.190 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is actually a somewhat complex issue and a quick google search of "an historic" will get you pages on it. The general consensus, however, appears to be that, while not completely unacceptable, "an historic" is somewhat archaic. Deshinf (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "An historic"

message: Ed Felten comments in his blog that there are several factual errors in this entry: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html
:I posted a comment there asking him to use this Talk page to explain the problems, so we can work on them. - Brian Kendig 14:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that when he posted it in his column - all the issues he named have been addressed, and any more he cares to mention will be addressed. - Brian Kendig 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual errors according to Ed Felten

message: I believe that the presentation and commentary of the news links, as well as the last paragraph before "External Links", are rather POV. However, I do not trust my own familiarity with this case to fix this. It would be nice if someone could clean this up. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited those parts of the article to be, in my opinion, NPOV. - Brian Kendig 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the NPOV dispute header, as I can't find any justification for it. I'm not claming that the article is perfect, but it seems to cover the main points fairly competently, and do not understand Timwi's objection. An objection on NPOV grounds needs to state what is objected to, not just object in general terms. If you still object, Timwi, you need to say why you object. Tannin 23:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I've attributed the quotes directly in the Wikipedia article.  Please let me know if you believe more should be done (or feel free to make the edits yourself). Brian Kendig 15:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: I propose that we move this article to United States v. Microsoft. -- MIT Trekkie 14:39, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
*It sounds like a good idea, as long as there is a redirect from "Microsoft antitrust case" as that is often used to refer to the case. Josh 20:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
::Good idea! Done. - Brian Kendig 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to United States v. Microsoft?

message: This information is inaccurate in a number of ways.
For example, it claims that I produced a second video tape without Dr. Felton or government attorneys being present.  This is incorrect. I demonstrated what I stated in my written testimony was correct and Dr. Felton and government attorneys watched me do it -- right into the middle of the night.
The original video tape was edited by the Microsoft legal group -- not me -- just to set the record straight.  I was not even present during the filming of the first tape. But I had personally performed the operations proving what was in my testimony so I knew my written testimony was correct.  But, I was not involved in the production of the first video tape.  I had assumed that the legal group followed the steps perfectly, but instead they had taken short cuts and ended up with an edited tape.
You can check the court transcripts to prove this.  
jim allchin
----
Jim, methinks thou doth protest too much.  The import of the article -- that the first video had been edited and that the microsoft claim of a slow-down was dropped after that late-night session -- is correct.  Does the entry contain a little anti-MS spin?  Yeah, probably.  But like it or not, the videotape debacle was not one of the shining moments for MSFT. -- Gnetwerker 07:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors and Facts

message: Anyway, I made some major edits/improvements the article. Basides some obvious tense and other problems, here's a summary:
#Rewrote the first paragraph for style and merged in related points from other intro "paragraphs". 
#:Got rid of "It was also suggested that the bookmarks, search engine, and other links and software provided by default with Internet Explorer were guaranteed to have very high visibility to users.". This doesn't make any sense - what was wrong with the links? As is it reads like someone trying to insinuate something that the person can't really prove with existing facts. Would be nice if this was added back with proper context and verifyability.
#:"widely publicised" isn't really true. PARTS of the case were widely publicised, but most didn't reach beyond the computing media. If there's a word this better that would be good. "historic" (the previous) is downiright silly. A better choice might be something like "in a case that garnered national media attention" - somewhat more accurate
#Killed a redundant sentence in the second paragraph about them bundling IE in order to destroy competitors etc. - already stated in the first paragraph, no need to repeat.
#"resulting in consumers being exposed to serious security hazards and other harms" nonsensical removed sentence (and rather redundant too).
#got rid of the timeline - contained a lot of unneccesary and unrelated tidbits such as the EU case (which really deserves its own page) and the many companies with independant suits. I did merge in the relevant stuff from the list that wasn't already there, however
#General prose tighting
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edits

message: I removed this para:
:: "It should be noted that with the emergence of affordable broadband connections and the distrbution of complete Linux kernel operating systems over the internet, most popular distributions of Linux are packaged with a web browser (for example, Ubuntu and Red Hat). However, it should also be noted that removing these web browsers in Linux are much easier (and safer) than removing Internet Explorer from Windows.:
This is based on the false premise that the mere bundling of the browser was at issue -- it is not and never was.  Bundling of a secondary product with a monopoly product is a violation of anti-trust laws, so the bundling of browsers with Linux systems, which do not have "market power", is immaterial and misleading. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't that a difference in degree?  At what point does a product have "market power" or become a "monopoly product"? 209.115.153.68 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I think the lead should tell us what the outcome of the case was. -- MarkBuckles 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of case

message: Hi, I was reading a local tech magazine, and it turns out the MS v. US case is still going on, and they've applied for extensions. Can anyone confirm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.179.83 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section that says "Settlement". Settlement means it's over. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the last paragraph under "Settlement." MS agreed to allow extensions to (parts of?) the remedy past the Nov2007 expiration. 159.247.2.8 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the case still on-going?

message: There appear to be some glaring problems with the Appeals section.  For example, there is this text:
"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave embargoed interviews to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges [11]. "
This is incorrect.  They overturned Judge Jackson's Remedies based on many factors, including Jacksons conduct, but also because the Appelate court had severely limited the scope under which the Remedies could be taken.  The rulings themselves were overturned because the plaintiff had failed to make their case in regards to the tying and monopolization charges, NOT because of Jackson's conduct.
The way this section is worded sounds like the ruling was overturned on a mere technicality, when there was a lot more reasons given.  The conduct really only was important in the replacement of Jackson, and their argument that he should have recused himself, and really had no bearing on the ruling. 190.10.0.192 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeals Section

message: Close to GA nomination, but a little NPOV and citation issues need to be fixed first.Pckilgore (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: The picture of Gates is hardly neutral.  The first frame can be considered as though he has a distaste for legal precedings, the second is irrelevant and thus makes him look stupid, and the fourth can be taken as though he is not taking the trial seriously.  Only the third frame is perfectly safe.  If this is a Wikipedia user-made picture it needs to be replaced.  The file description is a little ambiguous about how the picture was reused from the original -- so I don't know if it was actually a four frame picture or whether a user decided to make a four frame picture to upload. --Teancum (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuetrality of the picture

message: Which two states was Microsoft excluding from their report? The top of the page says 20 states filed.--75.48.18.41 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, '''18 states''', and the District of Columbia in two separate actions..."

message: This paragraph at the end of the Trial section seems out of place:
The trial was also notable for the use by both the prosecution and the defense of professors of MIT to serve as expert witnesses to bolster their cases. Richard L. Schmalensee, a noted economist and the dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, testified as an expert witness in favor of Microsoft. Franklin Fisher, another MIT economist who was Schmalensee's former doctoral thesis adviser, testified in favor of the Department of Justice.
I checked the reference, and it sounds like there's something interesting going on here, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article. The paragraph should be expanded or perhaps deleted. This information belongs in a larger discussion of the two professors' statements to the court. Within that context the professors' relationship may be interesting. Without that context this paragraph feels tacked on. Given the facts already presented in the article, it isn't clear why the professional tension between these two witnesses is notable. It may be that their testimony didn't factor into the court's final decision and so doesn't merit mention. If that's the case, maybe this paragraph should be deleted, because it ruins the flow of an otherwise well-written section. If that's not the case, a brief summary of the professors' testimony is needed.
What do the editors think? Is this paragraph hinting at something important, or is this trivia?The Mole of Production (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Also Notable

message: I marked a session unbalanced since the quotes from the sources are skewed in an anti-Microsoft direction. The sources quoted are mostly primary sources (mostly news reporting too close to the events) and the quotes does not reflect the events in a neutral manner. Useerup (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: No one has improved this section in 7 1/2 years. Surely there is a closure possible by now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.22.113 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement Section not updated since MAY 2006? 

message: *Oppose.  We just got through with the last move a month ago.  Nothing has changed, and the closure of another article's RM as no consensus is not a valid basis for going through this again, so soon.  GregJackP Boomer!  19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These days, probably Office?  Windows?  I have lost battles with both.  Some say that to argue with Microsoft means you have already lost, the answer is Linux or Mac. It's not surprising to think that an entire government had a battle with the product.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

text: *People do say (have said) "I'm running Microsoft" and "Do you have Microsoft"?.  The commonly recognized product is the program suite, not the operating system.  I never saw anyone spell out Microsoft in MSDOS.  Word was ambiguous with WordPerfect.  Lotus123 was very popular before losing out to Microsoft (excel), and not because excel was better.  In any case, such conversations were sloppy use of language, ambiguous jargon to overhear, and not the sort of thing that supports reference work material.  Ltd. and Corp. and some other jargony abbreviations have long been seen attached to trademarks to for legally precise reasons.  In legal matters, precision is important.  Skipping the customary precision is amateurish. The most reliable sources are not amateurish, and so neither should we be.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: **Well, let's agree to disagree about whether people colloquially say  "I'm running Microsoft" and "Do you have Microsoft", as that's irrelevant.  What's relevant is whether the term "Microsoft" is commonly used to refer to "the program suite" in reliable sources.  Is that your claim?  If so, can you back it up?  --B2C 23:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are you seriously asking whether people abbreviate "Microsoft Office" to "Microsoft"?  All the time, colloquially. In reliable sources?  No.  But you should only be asking for reliable sources if I am seeking to move Microsoft Office to Microsoft (which would be a bad idea for multiple reasons).  You don't need reliable sources for people to be confused as to a meaning of "Microsoft"NB.  I consider ENeville to have more recently provided a much better argument for opposing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've re-added the Lede re-write tag.  The lede doesn't summarize the article.  It is written like an introduction and stops at the start of the case at the District Court.  GregJackP Boomer!  21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede rewrite tag 

message: The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten.  GregJackP Boomer!  21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention needed 

message: FN 1.  Reference no longer shows a "History of IE" and does not support the referenced text.  May be replaced with Derek Ferguson, Mobile.NET, pp. 23-42, (2001).  GregJackP Boomer!  21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have to say that the section is not coherently organized and should really be rewritten.  First telling about the actual settlement, then what Microsoft's obligations were under it, and then what people said about it.
It is not even clear when the settlement expired.  Was it 2007? or was it extended till 2012 or was only part of it extended till 2012 or did that not even happen?
What I looked up to see about was the question of Microsoft not being able to coerce computer makers to install MS Windows on their machines.  I noticed that this had started happening again in 2013 and there it was impossible to purchase a PC with any other operating system installed although it had been 2 years ago.  So, it would be of some interest to know when Section III. A. I. of the final judgement expired and perhaps some discussion of the issue as to whether it was ever properly enforced.
Tyrerj (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement section does not contain sufficient information 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Promotes subliminal advertising and squinted eye at mass scale. 115.96.217.220 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subliminal advertising and squinted eye syndrome