08-01-2013, 06:28 PM
Fistfull of xanax
(08-01-2013, 06:59 PM)velvetfog Wrote: I am quite familiar with that case. It changed nothing.
The settlement (according to the wiki link you provided) was as follows:
On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement. Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate.
It was the Democratic Bill Clinton administration that had pursued the Microsoft antitrust suit.
When the Republican George W. Bush administration took over, they weren't interested in pursuing the matter to the point of breaking up Microsoft into separate firms the way Standard Oil and AT&T had been broken up in the past as a result of federal antitrust cases against them.
(08-02-2013, 05:18 AM)LannisterHater Wrote: Microsoft has three distinct business divisions. although they didn't HAVE to break up AFTER their appeal, they did so to avoid future litigation. they are also planning on restructuring again in the near future.
(08-03-2013, 12:15 AM)velvetfog Wrote: Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.
(08-05-2013, 05:06 AM)LannisterHater Wrote:(08-03-2013, 12:15 AM)velvetfog Wrote: Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.
I think in the context of earlier statements, it is very relevant.
(08-05-2013, 07:20 AM)velvetfog Wrote:(08-05-2013, 05:06 AM)LannisterHater Wrote:(08-03-2013, 12:15 AM)velvetfog Wrote: Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.
I think in the context of earlier statements, it is very relevant.
Your thinking is simply wrong.
No nation uses anti-trust laws or any other form of litigation for the purpose of influencing or dictating how a private firm organizes its internal structure.
Private companies are either left alone, made to pay fines, or broken up into several independent corporations.