|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 12:58 PM EST |
I believe that is the reality and all of the
sabre-rattling was just some FUD stirred
up by some moles.
Google has been waiting and willing to take
this attack on, but I doubt it will occur.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 01:31 PM EST |
I was going to thank you for the Emphasis Added on the first quote,
but I see it there on The Inq's page :)
IMO if the case were to proceed it would prove that
The Internet Makes You Stupid.
If people can't learn how to frame search terms,
they deserve the results they are given.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 04:54 AM EST |
From NY et al v. Microsoft (without citations):In order to review
the district court’s findings on this point, the appellate court outlined
a
four-part test for determining whether particular conduct can be said to
violate antitrust law.
“First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a
monopolist’s act must have an ‘anticompetitive
effect.’ That is, it must harm
the competitive process and thereby harm consumers.”
Second, the
plaintiff must “demonstrate that the monopolist’s conduct
harmed competition,
not just a competitor.”
Third, “the monopolist may proffer
a
‘procompetitive justification’ for its conduct.” If this justification stands
unrebutted by the
plaintiff, the monopolist may escape liability.
Therefore, the fourth prong of the inquiry requires
that the plaintiff
“demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs
the
procompetitive benefit.”
The appellate court stressed that,
although evidence of intent is
relevant “to understand the likely effect of the
monopolist’s conduct,” when assessing the
balance between the anticompetitive
harm and the procompetitive effect, the trial court should
focus on the “effect
of [the exclusionary] conduct, not the intent behind
it.”
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST |
Expect more silly lawsuits.
This is because the wording strongly suggests word games. Its not about whether
there is a case or not, its about "insufficient evidence". Therefore,
expect M$ and cronies to file even more specious lawsuits that make ever more
far-reaching claims, that they can then turn around and point to as
"evidence".
After all, as SCO said... hearsay and innuendo are kind of evidence...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|