<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.networkworld.com/community" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>antitrust</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268</link>
 <description>Showing new posts in a forum view</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Polish watchdog asks the EU to investagate Microsoft for anti-trust</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31340</link>
 <description>A watchdog organization in Poland  has reportedly asked the EU&amp;#39;s European Commission to investigate&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/scrutiny.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;55&quot; height=&quot;55&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; Microsoft over its dealings with laptop makers in the region, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLL63872620080821?rpc=44&quot;&gt;Reuters&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wbj.pl/article-42243-microsoft-again-under-attack.html?typ=wbj&quot;&gt;Warsaw Business Journal&lt;/a&gt; report. The organization had been conducting an investigation over whether Microsoft was colluding  with laptop makers to restrict the availability of Linux as an operating system choice. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31340&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31340#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2148">EU</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9773">European Commission</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13068">Microsoft anti-trust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14853">Poland asks EC to investigate Microsoft</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:09:52 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">31340 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Google to meet antitrust queries with straight face</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29940</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;To pull off Google&#039;s strategy for calming antitrust fears from its ad search deal with Yahoo, Google legal eagle David Drummond will need to present his case without cracking a smile, a difficult feat at best. According to Google&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/07/congressional-hearings-on-online.html&quot;&gt;press release&lt;/a&gt; offered ahead of today&#039;s hearings before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, Google&#039;s response contains the following hard-to-swallow facts, among others: &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29940&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29940#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13371">deal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/71">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13738">hearing</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13736">House</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13737">Judiciary Committee</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2760">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13739">search advertising</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13735">Senate</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/124">Yahoo</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:06:16 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29940 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>  DOJ opens formal probe into Google/Yahoo deal</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29507</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;All bets are off now as Google&#039;s search ad partnership with Yahoo is being formally scrutinized by the Justice Department, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST2008070102640.html&quot;&gt;according to an article in today&#039;s Washington Post&lt;/a&gt;. While Google and Yahoo had agreed to forestall the deal until the DOJ finished a voluntary review, the formal investigation is a red flag that signals serious antitrust concerns on the part of the DOJ. Here&#039;s what one expert quoted in the article says: &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29507&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29507#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1043">advertising</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13371">deal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3524">doj</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13373">formal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13370">Google. Yahoo</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13374">investigation</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13372">Justice</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2760">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13375">monopoly</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/562">search</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13376">Washington Post</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:59:46 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29507 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft removed interoperability documents, Feds accuse</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29217</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The court-mandated committee that is overseeing Microsoft&amp;#39;s compliance with its   federal antitrust settlement said that&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/documents.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;documents&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;63&quot; height=&quot;63&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; Microsoft has deleted some key information from its previously published protocols and is breaking its word in the process. So says &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208800293&quot;&gt;a story in InformationWeek.&lt;/a&gt; Microsoft apparently deleted some data on  its Windows protocols  from its published  technical documentation that others  use   to write Windows software, according to a report filed last week by the Technical Committee overseeing antitrust compliance. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29217&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29217#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2148">EU</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13159">Microsoft interopability</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13160">Microsoft protocols</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13161">Windows interoperability</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:29:04 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29217 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Windows 7 and IE8 reviewed for antitrust, but will the US rubber stamp?</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29132</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This review is to be expected given that the November 2002 consent decree was extended into 2009 after several states petitioned to make that so. The real&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet images/scrutiny.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;66&quot; height=&quot;66&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; question is, is the US &amp;quot;investigation&amp;quot; going to really do anything substantial? Or will it rubber stamp whatever it finds? &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29132&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29132#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/13068">Microsoft anti-trust</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:00:34 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">29132 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft to EU: Please forget about the $1.3 billion fine</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27658</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Microsoft, don&amp;#39;t hold your breath that the EU will pat you on the shoulder and &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/25466&quot;&gt;forgive the $1.3 fine&lt;/a&gt;  it imposed in February.&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet images/eu flag.png&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;83&quot; height=&quot;56&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; It is good for all concerned (including Microsoft itself, your customers and your stock holders), that you have arrived at the modern age and  &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/25305&quot;&gt;published the  protocols&lt;/a&gt; for Windows, Office and other applications. This allows Windows to remain viable -- to be a target for   open source developers wanting to create great new apps for it, instead of being slowly replaced by Linux (which might still happen). &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27658&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27658#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2148">EU</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11904">fines</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 19:39:15 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">27658 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Another huge thump on the head from the EU?</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26969</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Granted, Microsoft is a ruthless competitor, and the &lt;a href=&quot;/community/taxonomy/term/2148/all&quot;&gt;EU&amp;#39;s hard-handed approach&lt;/a&gt;has been generally a good thing -- forcing Microsoft to open itself up, which in the long run will be good for everyone, even Microsoft. But it will be interesting to see if the anti-Microsoft forces in Europe can get Microsoft excluded from EU gov&amp;#39;t contracts because of the company&amp;#39;s antitrust violations.&lt;/p&gt; Given the enormity of the software that would become off limits to EU IT departments, that would not be a good move for anyone. &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go to &lt;a href=&quot;/subnets/microsoft/&quot;&gt;the Microsoft Subnet home page for more news, blogs, opinion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26969#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5440">anti-trust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2148">EU</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:19:12 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">26969 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>New Chinese antitrust law could affect Microsoft/Yahoo deal</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26427</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;When Yahoo invested $1 billion in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.com, it may have put itself under the&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet images/China-flag.png&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;66&quot; height=&quot;49&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; jurisdiction of a new antitrust law, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/technology/28yahoo.html&quot;&gt;reports the New York Times.&lt;/a&gt; The law, which goes into effect August 1, gives Chinese regulators the authority to examine foreign mergers when the foreign companies involved invest in Chinese companies.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Legal experts say the law could make China a worldwide regulatory powerhouse on par with Washington and Brussels. However, the specifics of how China might influence a merger between Microsoft and Yahoo are fuzzy. The story notes:  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26427&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26427#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2069">Chinese</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1939">Global</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/8966">Microsoft acquisitions</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/146">regulatory</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/124">Yahoo</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:54:50 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">26427 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Windows 7 in a hurry</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25933</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;While the submission of Windows 7 to the U.S. DOJ&amp;#39;s technical committee doesn&amp;#39;t reveal much about the operating system, it&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet images/Vista square.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;62&quot; height=&quot;50&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; does indicate how serious Microsoft is in getting its next client OS out the door. Vista has tanked. Better get the next one done.&lt;/p&gt;Perhaps analyst Mike Cherry has hit on a good solution. What if Microsoft makes Windows 7 a lean, mean business machine (that also complies with DOJ stipulations that it doesn&amp;#39;t favor Microsoft software over others&amp;#39;)? Then again, by the time this OS could be ready to ship, businesses could have already moved on to desktop Linux or Apple&amp;#39;s Leopard.&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp; &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25933&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25933#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/7678">Windows 7</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:57:04 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25933 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>EU fines Microsoft $1.3B for antitrust abuse</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25466</link>
 <description>In the continuing saga between Microsoft and the European Commission, the commission fined Microsoft 899 million Euros, about 1.3 billion dollars on Wednesday for what the competition commissioner called continued failure to honor a 2004 antitrust ruling.
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;embed src=&quot;http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1243511167&quot; bgcolor=&quot;#FFFFFF&quot; flashVars=&quot;videoId=1435493304&amp;playerId=1243511167&amp;viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://services.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&amp;servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&amp;cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&amp;domain=embed&amp;autoStart=false&amp;&quot; base=&quot;http://admin.brightcove.com&quot; name=&quot;flashObj&quot; width=&quot;470&quot; height=&quot;398&quot; seamlesstabbing=&quot;false&quot; type=&quot;application/x-shockwave-flash&quot; swLiveConnect=&quot;true&quot; pluginspage=&quot;http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&quot;&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
 &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25466&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25466#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2148">EU</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9773">European Commission</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:33:36 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>videonet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25466 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft may be slapped with $2.2 billion antitrust fine from EU</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25421</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Regulators in the European Union have not been swayed by &lt;a href=&quot;/community/?q=node/25271&quot;&gt;Microsoft&amp;#39;s announcement last week&lt;/a&gt; that it was finally making its&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/dollar-sign.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;60&quot; height=&quot;66&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; software communication protocols openly available. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&amp;amp;sid=advVtkVK6IHQ&amp;amp;refer=europe&quot;&gt;Bloomberg is reporting &lt;/a&gt; that the EU is considering slapping Microsoft with a fine for not complying with its 2004 antitrust order. The fine may be announced on February 27. Microsoft revealed in a January 24 regulatory filing that it was anticipating a fine that could be as high as 1.5 euros ($2.2 billino). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The story reports:  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25421&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25421#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9773">European Commission</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:19:26 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25421 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Torvalds approves of Microsoft&#039;s protocol sharing</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25385</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;As you might expect, the open source community has given a mixed response to Microsoft&#039;s announcement last week that&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/Linus_Torvalds.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;60&quot; height=&quot;63&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; it is freely publishing protocols for its popular software to ease interoperability. Some are cautiously optimistic and some remain hostile. Red Hat, for instance, remains in the hostile camp, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022500020.html&quot;&gt;a story in the Washington Post&lt;/a&gt;. No surprise there since Red Hat&#039;s operating systems competes directly with Microsoft&#039;s wares, and Red Hat wins when Microsoft takes an anti-open-source stance. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25385&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25385#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9773">European Commission</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/431">Linus Torvalds</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/426">Linux</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/260">open source</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:58:31 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25385 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>European Commission to Microsoft ... not buying it</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25273</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The European Commission, in the midst of&lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/23914&quot;&gt; two formal antitrust investigations&lt;/a&gt;  against Microsoft, is not buying &lt;a href=&quot;/news/2008/022108-microsoft-open-source.html&quot;&gt;Microsoft&amp;#39;s announcement&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/eu%20flag.png&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;64&quot; height=&quot;42&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; today&lt;/a&gt;  that the company has gone hog-wild open. It notes that Microsoft has already promised such things -- four times over. And it says that today&amp;#39;s promises (if the company follows through with them) doesn&amp;#39;t relieve Microsoft from the consequences of its alleged past failure of complying with earlier antitrust rules.  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25273&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25273#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2760">Microsoft</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:20:24 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25273 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>One of the differences with today&#039;s announcement</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25271</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Today&amp;#39;s announcement is a little different than the promises Microsoft has made in the past in that it is publishing the protocols and APIs, not just promising to do so. Of course, only time will tell if the protocols it publishes are lacking in some way. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25271&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25271#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/29">Data Center</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3912">Microsoft versus Linux</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/260">open source</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:31:50 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25271 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft: We&#039;re open source friendly, as of today</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25264</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;UPDATED: Microsoft today is announcing that it declares itself open. It is promising&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;1) Open connections &lt;br /&gt;2) Data portability&lt;br /&gt;3) Support for industry standards&lt;br /&gt;4) More open engagement with the industry and open source software community&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the biggest news is that Microsoft is making its protocols and APIs completely open and available on its Web site for its high volume products, Windows and Office. This is, of course, the source of contention that the European Commission was investigating. So score one for the EC. It has clearly been one of the major driving sources in this Microsoft announcement.  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25264&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25264#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/21">Network Management</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/260">open source</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:07:34 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">25264 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Antitrust oversight of Microsoft extended to 2009</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24511</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Microsoft announced yesterday that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order extending the consent decree through&lt;img src=&quot;/Micronet%20images/Gavel01.jpg&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; vspace=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;67&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; November 12, 2009. The court’s action came in response to &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/20941&quot;&gt;requests by a number of states &lt;/a&gt; involved in the case to extend the consent decree by five years. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Microsoft published this timeline of events concerning its history with the antitrust oversight consent decree:  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24511&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24511#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:47:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">24511 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft Remains Untrustworthy</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24492</link>
 <description>Tuesday, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly extended the court&amp;#39;s antitrust  oversight of Microsoft an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2964301820080130&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;additional two years&lt;/a&gt; , until Nov. 12, 2009. The two  year extension came because Microsoft hasn&amp;#39;t yet turned over technical  documentation required by the consent decree from 2002.  &lt;p&gt;The states who were party to the antitrust lawsuit wanted a five year  extension due to concerns Microsoft will turn to it&amp;#39;s old ways of bullying  hardware manufactures and intertwine applications with the Windows operating  system. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24492&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24492#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1035">General discussions</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/7355">consent decree</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/9091">District Court</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/2760">Microsoft</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:21:19 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mitchell Ashley</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">24492 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft antitrust troubles continue in Europe with two new cases</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/23914</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Europe is downright determined to reign in antitrust mischief from Microsoft, which can only be called a good thing, as the U.S.&amp;#39;s attempts have been completely ineffective. Today, &lt;a href=&quot;/news/2008/011408-microsoft-faces-two-new-european.html&quot;&gt;two new European cases were announced&lt;/a&gt;. The first case is in response to a complaint from the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a Brussels-based trade group of which Opera Software is a member. (Opera also filed &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/23024&quot;&gt;an antitrust complaint against Microsoft&lt;/a&gt; in mid-December.) This new case concerns the interoperability of Windows with other software, the Commission said Monday. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/23914&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/23914#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/29">Data Center</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/8608">Opera Software</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:19:42 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">23914 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft Consent Decree, Phase X</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/21983</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;In November 2002, Microsoft agreed to abide by the terms of a consent decree with the department of justice and most of the states after the antitrust ruling against Microsoft. The decree included a number of milestones, which you can find described on numerous sites, including Microsoft&amp;#39;s (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/settlementprogram/default.mspx&quot;&gt;http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/settlementprogram/default.mspx&lt;/a&gt;). The decree states that third parties may submit complaints concerning Microsoft&amp;#39;s compliance with the Consent Decree. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/21983&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/21983#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/7355">consent decree</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3735">Desktop Search</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:29:23 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Kerrie Meyler</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">21983 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Four more states lobby for continued Microsoft oversight</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20941</link>
 <description>New York, Maryland, Louisiana and Florida have joined the &quot;Microsoft oversight&quot; bandwagon. They have submitted their own plea to continue judicial oversight of Microsoft. This after the so-called California Group &lt;a href=&quot; http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20812&quot;&gt;formally petitioned to extend oversight to 2012 last week&lt;/a&gt;. (The California Group is lead by California but also includes Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts, the District of Columbia.)
 &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20941&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20941#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/123">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/17">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/5268">antitrust</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:05:02 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Microsoft Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">20941 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
