>>>>>>>I'm curious how far breaking the law is ok in your view then. What else is it ok for them to do? Rob a bank? Steal from the grocery store? Steal a car? Break into homes and steal another person's belongings? Anything they think they need to do for a better economic life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Funny how "breaking the law" suddenly gets explained via straight theft from a person. I somehow never see embezzlement, corporate fraud, Ponzi schemes, buying laws, Microsoft etc. As if any of these aren't a convincing example.
>>>>>
>>>>>How did Microsoft land on that list?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Uh.... where were you during the past (and current) Microsoft antitrust court battle?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right here, ma'am. And I seem to recall them being exonerated.
>>
>>No,they reached a SETTLEMENT
>
>Yes, they reached a "settlement," but not in the usual legal sense. Usually it means you pay a fine and they let you go. In this case Microsoft paid no fine. They agreed to let competitors view their source code for five years. Exonerated was the wrong word but so was settlement.

Really? It was a settlement in the U.S. plain and simple. Mike, some of your posts are starting to concern me.

Microsoft's version:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/01-17-06AntitrustFS.mspx

Snippet:
After discussions ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Microsoft reached a settlement – often referred to as the consent decree – with the DOJ in 2001. Nine states joined with that agreement, while seven others continued to pursue their claims separately before accepting the District Court’s final judgment in 2002. One state appealed that ruling; however, it was upheld in 2004 by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Additionally, Microsoft reached separate settlements with three state governments – two prior to the consent decree and one after the final judgment.

More stuff and the EU:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/110977/EU_says_Microsoft_broke_antitrust_law_to_seal_monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft