Yay! We think. (12/11/97)
SceneLink
 

Aaaaaaand speaking of browsers, Judge Jackson has given his ruling in the Department of Justice vs. Microsoft case. Unfortunately, we're not entirely sure how to interpret the results.

The first announcement we saw was the news.com article entitled "Judge Issues Order Against MS." Sounds pretty clear-cut. Judge Jackson has "issued a temporary order forbidding the company from requiring licensees of Windows 95 to carry Internet Explorer." And since it comes only six days after last Friday's hearing, we figured that Judge Jackson saw things pretty much the way the DoJ did. In his 19-page decision, he states that while "the government has failed to prove its case" that Microsoft was violating the consent decree by forcing the inclusion of IE on all Windows systems, he felt that "Justice has a strong likelihood of prevailing in the future." He has called for more evidence in order to settle the case. About the only part of the decision that benefits Microsoft is his denial of a DoJ request to release Wintel manufacturers from their nondisclosure agreements.

However, we then saw the coverage over at thessaSOURCE. And while the basic facts are the same (temporary cease-and-desist order, etc.), the spin is entirely different. ThessaSOURCE states that Judge Jackson "ruled against the Justice Department" and "rejected the DoJ's arguments completely and dismissed their civil contempt charge altogether." Sounds like a Microsoft victory in that light. So what's the real deal? Sigh... Legal interpretation is so much easier when watching L.A. Law...

 
SceneLink (260)
And Now For A Word From Our Sponsors
 

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

 

The above scene was taken from the 12/11/97 episode:

December 11, 1997: (Sorry—this was before we started writing intro text for each episode!)

Other scenes from that episode:

  • 259: Browsers on the Way (12/11/97)   In our episode yesterday, we wondered aloud if anyone could free us suffering Mac surfers from the repressive shackles of a two-party system. With Microsoft's Borg-like bent for dominion on one side and Netscape's indifference (and occasional hostility) to all things Macintosh on the other, we find ourselves trapped in a "lesser of two evils" scenario unmatched since the last U.S...

  • 261: Rumors of False Rumors (12/11/97)   Help us, please, somebody help us-- our collective heads are spinning like a top! Well, okay, not really. But it's interesting to hear from MacOS Rumors that Niehaus Ryan, Apple's PR firm, contacted them with the express purpose to put to rest the rumors that Apple would be announcing new NC's and a strategic alliance with Oracle at next month's MacWorld Expo...

Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast...

Vote Early, Vote Often!
Why did you tune in to this '90s relic of a soap opera?
Nostalgia is the next best thing to feeling alive
My name is Rip Van Winkle and I just woke up; what did I miss?
I'm trying to pretend the last 20 years never happened
I mean, if it worked for Friends, why not?
I came here looking for a receptacle in which to place the cremated remains of my deceased Java applets (think about it)

(1246 votes)

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

DISCLAIMER: AtAT was not a news site any more than Inside Edition was a "real" news show. We made Dawson's Creek look like 60 Minutes. We engaged in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here was "inspired by actual events," but so was Amityville II: The Possession. So lighten up.

Site best viewed with a sense of humor. AtAT is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. Keep hands inside car at all times. The drinking of beverages while watching AtAT is strongly discouraged; AtAT is not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers."

Everything you see here that isn't attributed to other parties is copyright ©,1997-2024 J. Miller and may not be reproduced or rebroadcast without his explicit consent (or possibly the express written consent of Major League Baseball, but we doubt it).