Y. Minutes, July 18, 1994
Indeed, even Microsoft’s supporters concede that, « [a] year from now, [the proposed decree] will be » no more than « a blip on the radar screen of computing history. » William Casey, Let’s Stop Beating To your Microsoft, Washington Post https://datingranking.net/wantmatures-review/, July 25, 1994, at F15. « Issued five years ago, the ruling would have had an effect. users were open to alternative environments, even if it meant migrating from [Microsoft’s products]. » Id. « Those choices, and the years in which they could have been made freely, are ancient history . » Id.
104 Find and additionally John Markoff, N.supra, at D1 (Ex. 24) (« The agreement leaves untouched what many computer industry executives say is Microsoft’s principal advantage — that it develops both the basic operating system software that makes personal computers run. and applications software. that performs specific tasks. »); id. (« The other important issue not specifically addressed in the consent decree is whether Microsoft has been able to leverage its virtual monopoly in operating systems into domination of applications software — a far bigger and more lucrative market »); Claudia Maclachlan, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, supra, at B1 (« As long as [Microsoft has] a dominant position in operating systems . it allows them to leverage that into applications. This agreement does nothing to the sums quo. ») (internal quotation omitted).
Y. 1993) (blood evaluating tech);
105 Discover, elizabeth.g., Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp., 734 F.2d 1336, 1340-43 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. refuted, 473 U.S. 908 (1985); (software); Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 145, 155-56 (S.D.N.Viacom International, Inc. v. Big date Inc., 785 F. Supp. 371,377 (S.D.N.Y 1992). Discover including Lee v. Lifestyle Inches. Co., 829 F. Supp. 529, 537-39 (D.R.I. 1993), aff’d, 23 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.), cert.Continue Reading..
Recent Comments