Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.

"An historic"

It's only "an historic" if you can't pronounce "historic" correctly ;-) ... - Khendon 10:29 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

It always seemed to me that "an historic" may survive in England but has died out in the United States. And since this is an American subject ... — Toby 07:19 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, "an historic" is incorrect. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think an historic is recommended by some British style guides (i.e. all words beginning with h+vowel should be treated as if they began with just the vowel). It certainly sounds wrong to my ears, though. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm English, and I would never use such a phrase. I always presumed it was an American spelling... J Milburn 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But hang on; "This is an historic moment for the Russians" and "This is historic moment.." and "This is a historic moment..." Which one of those is correct? I think the first one however I'm not an English expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.27.190 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a somewhat complex issue and a quick google search of "an historic" will get you pages on it. The general consensus, however, appears to be that, while not completely unacceptable, "an historic" is somewhat archaic. Deshinf (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Micost$oft was become much more of a monopoly since judge Jackson broke them up over Netscape Vs. Explorer...

Factual errors according to Ed Felten

Ed Felten comments in his blog that there are several factual errors in this entry: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html

I posted a comment there asking him to use this Talk page to explain the problems, so we can work on them. - Brian Kendig 14:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"So far, so good. But now we come to the entry on the Microsoft case, which was riddled with errors. For starters, it got the formal name of the case (U.S. v. Microsoft) wrong. It badly characterization my testimony, it got the timeline of Judge Jackson's rulings wrong, and it made terminological errors such as referring to the DOJ as "the prosecution" rather than the "the plaintiff". I corrected two of these errors (the name of the case, and the description of my testimony), but fixing the whole thing was too big an effort."

Lotsofissues 13:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I saw that when he posted it in his column - all the issues he named have been addressed, and any more he cares to mention will be addressed. - Brian Kendig 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I believe that the presentation and commentary of the news links, as well as the last paragraph before "External Links", are rather POV. However, I do not trust my own familiarity with this case to fix this. It would be nice if someone could clean this up. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've edited those parts of the article to be, in my opinion, NPOV. - Brian Kendig 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV dispute header, as I can't find any justification for it. I'm not claming that the article is perfect, but it seems to cover the main points fairly competently, and do not understand Timwi's objection. An objection on NPOV grounds needs to state what is objected to, not just object in general terms. If you still object, Timwi, you need to say why you object. Tannin 23:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the Appeal section, in an attempt to provide some NPOV balance to the (uncited) rant from Judge Jackson. 159.247.2.8 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

==Quote attribution==basically microsoft got sued because they where taking over the internet If somebody wants to include quotes, which is text surrounded by "quote marks" the proper form is to attribute in the same sentence the source of the quote.

"Bill gates was rude in court"[1] is simply a slanderous allegation, it is not an attributed quote. If the editor is that convinced the quotes are relevant, the editor may browse to the internet sites listed before they are altered, determine who offered the statements and in what context, then report that information to Wikipedia. The proper style is "Bill Gates was rude in court." said (name source here).

Tannin's claim that the characters "[1]" hyperlinked to a commercial magaizine's web page comprise attribution of a quote is specious at best. If tannin replaces the unattributed quote, I will demand the not-NPOV header be restored. Hatemongering is not a fair way to tell the news. Reality check

I've attributed the quotes directly in the Wikipedia article. Please let me know if you believe more should be done (or feel free to make the edits yourself). Brian Kendig 15:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Historic case? and bias

I'm not sure that "historic" is really the right word to describe this case. Something can't really be historic if it happened only a few years ago. Plus, I think that "historic" is a bit of a loaded word anyway. I tried to think of a better word, but actually, I think it would be best to remove it altogether.

Also, some of the parenthetical comments in this article seem to be a bit biased, especially those in this paragraph:

Microsoft claimed that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and inextricably linked (despite the fact that a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Macintosh), and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free (a questionable assertion, since its development and marketing cost still had to come from somewhere and may have kept the price of Windows higher than it would otherwise have been).

I think it would be more appropriate (and more NPOV) like this:

Microsoft claimed that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and inextricably linked, and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those opposing Internet Explorer's inclusion in Windows countered that it was not really the same product, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for the Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free and that its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it would otherwise have been.

Does anyone have any comments about this? Josh 00:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. First off, you're right that "historic" isn't quite the right word here; I removed it, but is there a better word? "important", maybe? Or "landmark"? Or "much publicized"? Secondly, I think that's a good rewording of the para; I made a few changes to that and edited the article. Feel free to edit my edit. - Brian Kendig 15:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I put in "widely publicized" where "historic" used to be. That should give readers an idea of the importance of the case, but in a neutral sort of way. Also, I like the changes to the paragraph. They make it a bit clearer. Josh 17:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Note, Microsoft lost the Case in the European Court! Businessweek article discusses this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinionated Paragraph

The last paragraph is a stated opinion with no supporting material and should either be removed or updated to reflect “proof” or further discussion. “The outcome of the antitrust case has served to chill venture capital investment in technical startup companies, for fear that Microsoft will notice the startup's niche and starve off the new company to protect Microsoft's market.”

Agreed, and removed. Though I wish there were a way to state in the article, "Hey, look, Microsoft has proven that whenever it sees a little startup trying to make money off a great idea, it's proven that it's able to steal the idea, drive the startup out of business, drag the litigation out for years long past any chance of the company being saved, and get off with a slap on the wrist - so where's the motivation for anybody to try to bring a clever new idea to market any more?" Brian Kendig 15:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There must have been surveys done on this. "According to a YouGov poll, the number five concern of new software development startup companies is competition from one of the established players, notably Microsoft". Or something of that ilk. Hard to find, though. Martin 00:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a venture capitalist who has spoken directly with other venture capitalists about Microsoft, I can say with authority that the paragraph is factually accurate. Not to mention its widely reported in the media. (I'm going to log out to post this though. Like ProComp members, I fear the backlash Microsoft has inflicted in the past on its detractors.)

Move to United States v. Microsoft?

I propose that we move this article to United States v. Microsoft. -- MIT Trekkie 14:39, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• It sounds like a good idea, as long as there is a redirect from "Microsoft antitrust case" as that is often used to refer to the case. Josh 20:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea! Done. - Brian Kendig 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errors and Facts

This information is inaccurate in a number of ways.

For example, it claims that I produced a second video tape without Dr. Felton or government attorneys being present. This is incorrect. I demonstrated what I stated in my written testimony was correct and Dr. Felton and government attorneys watched me do it -- right into the middle of the night.

The original video tape was edited by the Microsoft legal group -- not me -- just to set the record straight. I was not even present during the filming of the first tape. But I had personally performed the operations proving what was in my testimony so I knew my written testimony was correct. But, I was not involved in the production of the first video tape. I had assumed that the legal group followed the steps perfectly, but instead they had taken short cuts and ended up with an edited tape.

You can check the court transcripts to prove this.

jim allchin

---

Jim, methinks thou doth protest too much. The import of the article -- that the first video had been edited and that the microsoft claim of a slow-down was dropped after that late-night session -- is correct. Does the entry contain a little anti-MS spin? Yeah, probably. But like it or not, the videotape debacle was not one of the shining moments for MSFT. -- Gnetwerker 07:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of most of the Anti-MS spin in the last edits. I looked quite a bit while for court documents containing allchin's statements/deposition but couldn't find them. Anyone know where to find them? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I provided the court documents to Ryan Norton soon after the last post. -- Gnetwerker 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Major edits

Anyway, I made some major edits/improvements the article. Basides some obvious tense and other problems, here's a summary:

1. Rewrote the first paragraph for style and merged in related points from other intro "paragraphs".

   Got rid of "It was also suggested that the bookmarks, search engine, and other links and software provided by default with Internet Explorer were guaranteed to have very high visibility to users.". This doesn't make any sense - what was wrong with the links? As is it reads like someone trying to insinuate something that the person can't really prove with existing facts. Would be nice if this was added back with proper context and verifyability.

   "widely publicised" isn't really true. PARTS of the case were widely publicised, but most didn't reach beyond the computing media. If there's a word this better that would be good. "historic" (the previous) is downiright silly. A better choice might be something like "in a case that garnered national media attention" - somewhat more accurate

2. Killed a redundant sentence in the second paragraph about them bundling IE in order to destroy competitors etc. - already stated in the first paragraph, no need to repeat.
3. "resulting in consumers being exposed to serious security hazards and other harms" nonsensical removed sentence (and rather redundant too).
4. got rid of the timeline - contained a lot of unneccesary and unrelated tidbits such as the EU case (which really deserves its own page) and the many companies with independant suits. I did merge in the relevant stuff from the list that wasn't already there, however
5. General prose tighting

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

I removed this para:

"It should be noted that with the emergence of affordable broadband connections and the distrbution of complete Linux kernel operating systems over the internet, most popular distributions of Linux are packaged with a web browser (for example, Ubuntu and Red Hat). However, it should also be noted that removing these web browsers in Linux are much easier (and safer) than removing Internet Explorer from Windows.:

This is based on the false premise that the mere bundling of the browser was at issue -- it is not and never was. Bundling of a secondary product with a monopoly product is a violation of anti-trust laws, so the bundling of browsers with Linux systems, which do not have "market power", is immaterial and misleading. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a difference in degree? At what point does a product have "market power" or become a "monopoly product"? 209.115.153.68 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence about Safari needs to be removed as well. This trial happened in 1998, Mac OS X did not exist at the time and neither did Safari (2003). --76.92.243.14 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Result of case

I think the lead should tell us what the outcome of the case was. -- MarkBuckles 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Antitrust Movie Relation?

this seems to have some correlation to the movie Antitrust (i forget the year it came out in). In the beginning, Gary Winston (the fictitious Bill Gates) is accused of the same crime stated in the case report, of having an unfair monopoly over the computer industry and not promoting healthy competition.

Dec 17,2006

yes,it definitely has co-relations with the 2001 movie >>Antitrust<< [2] starring Ryan Philippe as a prodigal software programmer and tim robbins as Gary Winston,who owns a computer company NURV.The Gary Winston character is loosely based on bill gates,.

Is the case still on-going?

Hi, I was reading a local tech magazine, and it turns out the MS v. US case is still going on, and they've applied for extensions. Can anyone confirm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.179.83 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC). I think the trial is still going. (72.234.203.203 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

See the section that says "Settlement". Settlement means it's over. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph under "Settlement." MS agreed to allow extensions to (parts of?) the remedy past the Nov2007 expiration. 159.247.2.8 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeals Section

There appear to be some glaring problems with the Appeals section. For example, there is this text:

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave embargoed interviews to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges [11]. "

This is incorrect. They overturned Judge Jackson's Remedies based on many factors, including Jacksons conduct, but also because the Appelate court had severely limited the scope under which the Remedies could be taken. The rulings themselves were overturned because the plaintiff had failed to make their case in regards to the tying and monopolization charges, NOT because of Jackson's conduct.

The way this section is worded sounds like the ruling was overturned on a mere technicality, when there was a lot more reasons given. The conduct really only was important in the replacement of Jackson, and their argument that he should have recused himself, and really had no bearing on the ruling. 190.10.0.192 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I question the use of an external link to the code of conduct. I think judicial codes of conduct is a noteworthy enough thing that it should go to it's own wikipedia page. 190.10.0.192 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

Close to GA nomination, but a little NPOV and citation issues need to be fixed first.Pckilgore (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuetrality of the picture

The picture of Gates is hardly neutral. The first frame can be considered as though he has a distaste for legal precedings, the second is irrelevant and thus makes him look stupid, and the fourth can be taken as though he is not taking the trial seriously. Only the third frame is perfectly safe. If this is a Wikipedia user-made picture it needs to be replaced. The file description is a little ambiguous about how the picture was reused from the original -- so I don't know if it was actually a four frame picture or whether a user decided to make a four frame picture to upload. --Teancum (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions..."

Which two states was Microsoft excluding from their report? The top of the page says 20 states filed.--75.48.18.41 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Notable

This paragraph at the end of the Trial section seems out of place:

The trial was also notable for the use by both the prosecution and the defense of professors of MIT to serve as expert witnesses to bolster their cases. Richard L. Schmalensee, a noted economist and the dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, testified as an expert witness in favor of Microsoft. Franklin Fisher, another MIT economist who was Schmalensee's former doctoral thesis adviser, testified in favor of the Department of Justice.

I checked the reference, and it sounds like there's something interesting going on here, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article. The paragraph should be expanded or perhaps deleted. This information belongs in a larger discussion of the two professors' statements to the court. Within that context the professors' relationship may be interesting. Without that context this paragraph feels tacked on. Given the facts already presented in the article, it isn't clear why the professional tension between these two witnesses is notable. It may be that their testimony didn't factor into the court's final decision and so doesn't merit mention. If that's the case, maybe this paragraph should be deleted, because it ruins the flow of an otherwise well-written section. If that's not the case, a brief summary of the professors' testimony is needed.

What do the editors think? Is this paragraph hinting at something important, or is this trivia?The Mole of Production (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Predatory Behavior", "Barrier to Entry"

These phrases are placed just before a citation of the case settlement (in the "Settlement" section). I read the source (the text of the settlement), and found that it does not contain these phrases. A comment after the citation says "Mgmwki Verbage indicating Settlement's Objectives", added by Mgmwki (talk · contribs), which suggests the source is some (perhaps oral) commentary. That is, this citation is simply incorrect - it doesn't cite what it seems to be citing. So what is the source of these phrases describing the settlement? Who made them, when and where? Hairy Dude (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The citation is still useful, but as a citation of the settlement, which is what it is, so I moved it up to make that clear. This commentary still needs citation (otherwise it counts as original research and does not belong here). Hairy Dude (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I Apologize for not answering sooner.

"Barrier to Entry" is a Technical Term used in both my (MIT and other Micro Economic TextBook) References, as well as in many other professional articles and duscussions.

I believe "Predatory Behavior" is a a Legal Term defined and used in other past Anti-Trust Court Cases. As originally Defined, it describes Microsoft's Behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not address the problem that these phrases are not mentioned in the settlement text. If it is true that the settlement terms were intended to 'prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"', we need to show some evidence of this, since Wikipedia cannot engage in independent commentary (also called original research). (By the way, I took the liberty of making your comments conform to talk page guidelines.) Hairy Dude (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Hairy Dude talk) It's been a long time, and I apologize Hairy Dude if the response here is inconvenient for anyone concerned. However, I feel it is important to address these points. The FTC, the USA Government's anti-trust law enforcement arm established in the "Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914", uses the words "predatory acts", which obviously includes "predatory behavior"! The FTC directly references the "Microsoft vs. United States" on its website.[3] The word "Agreement' is synonymous with the word [Settlement (litigation)|"settlement"]]; the latter being a legal term that can be used in place of the word "agreement" found on the FTC site.[4] The statements on the FTC website clearly indicates the FTC found that "Microsoft illegally maintained its operating systems monopoly by..":

"..making it technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser. Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser. These actions hampered efforts by computer makers to use or promote competing browsers, and discouraged the development of add-on software that was compatible with non-Microsoft browsers."

The "settlement" reached in this case, termed as an "agreement" on the same FTC website page, did in fact the FTC won it's case by forcing Microsoft to stop its anti-competitive behavior!

"The court found that, although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft. To settle the case, Microsoft agreed to end certain conduct that was preventing the development of competing browser software."

Therefore, the above comment in regards to the text within the Monopoly profit discussion, "..it does not contain these phrases", is irrelevant.(Mgmwki talk)

Unbalanced

I marked a session unbalanced since the quotes from the sources are skewed in an anti-Microsoft direction. The sources quoted are mostly primary sources (mostly news reporting too close to the events) and the quotes does not reflect the events in a neutral manner. Useerup (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to United States v. Microsoft Corp.. This shortens the title, as there appears to be consensus for doing here, but adheres to the newly added guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles. -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

United States v. Microsoft Corporation → United States v. Microsoft – I could not find a guideline regarding names of court cases. Nevertheless, Microsoft is a company, and "Corporation" is not part of the current title. Relisted. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, per the case -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:AT, the title must be concise. Your suggestion is too precise, and policy does not allow too much precision. --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It is not overly precise, it is the names used on the court case, and this is a court case article, it isn't some random United States and Microsoft article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Other articles aren't titled that way you wanted. Like United States v. Price. --George Ho (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad suggestion indeed. Compare titles beginning with United States v. against those beginning with United States of America v. (looks like those three should be fixed). --BDD (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Standard legal citation of the case would be United States v. Microsoft Corp., the "of America" is always omitted, and Wikipedia has followed that style in its titles of cases. I have no opinion on how Microsoft should be styled in the title, but the others should be made into redirects to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the change would undermine recognizability. I'm a bit surprised there's no naming standard established at WikiProject Law. Maybe there should be. Other articles on cases seem to use "Co." regularly, so "Corp." might be appropriate. ENeville (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

How so? We don't even have a Microsoft (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I started a general discussion at WP:MOSLAW. ENeville (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. More court cases could use such simplification. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the "of America" is redundant, "Corporation" has meaning, distinguishing from the product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which Microsoft product would commonly be referred to simply as "Microsoft"? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There are many possibilities. In general usage, Microsoft does not obviously refer to the corporation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That has yet to be demonstrated, given the lack of Microsoft (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:CRITERIA, including WP:COMMONNAME. While the official title of the case is United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation, it is commonly referred to as United States vs. Microsoft.

  There is no product, nor any other use, that is ambiguous with Microsoft - an obvious reference to the corporation. Especially in the context of a lawsuit. The current title is overly precise. --B2C 04:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The titling of legal cases is now part of official guideline. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And as George has brought to my attention, this was reverted, so I'm reopening this request. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support "Microsoft? I don't understand. Oh, Microsoft Corporation, now I understand." This is a sentence that is unlikely to be uttered by very many people. In fact, there are any number of legal citation formats, so to follow just one because of some government or government-sanctioned edict would in essence be saying might makes right. This is not a court, a judge or judicial council is just like everyone else, and their formatting edicts should not be taken as holy scripture. The KISS principle, as incorporated by WP:PRECISION (WP:CRITERIA) and WP:COMMONNAME, are sound policies. This is not a legal encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia for laymen. (I note my !vote may change depending on the outcome of the policy discussion currently underway at WP:MOS/Legal.) Int21h (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Consensus agreed to use legal citations for relevant jurisdictions. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• The article was longstanding at United States v. Microsoft from late 2004 until April this year when Corporation was boldly added to Microsoft's name, without any immediate prior discussion. I'm ambivalent about this minor difference and don't like to see too much energy spent on debates like this. I'd be inclined to say keep the longstanding name, and that seems to be where consensus was leaning here, but now we have an RfC on the guideline which seems to go the other way. We can't go against the guideline, which says use MICROSOFT CORPORATION, not Microsoft Corp. Sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, that is not what the guideline says. The link you use is the entire case name, not the "legal citation convention", which is Bluebook. The Bluebook cite would be United States v. Microsoft Corp., abbreviating Corp. per T6 (Case Names and Institutional Authors in Citations). The first example in the guideline the Microsoft case, BTW. GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The guideline says:

Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case.

Does THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA use Bluebook as its legal citation convention? Can you find me a source that says it does that? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in United States District Court for the District of Columbia that says what its legal citation convention is; no mention of Bluebook. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You may not find anything specific. Bluebook is the generally recognized style manual for U.S. courts, although ALWD is allowed as an option in 4 or 5 jurisdictions. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Settlement Section not updated since MAY 2006?

No one has improved this section in 7 1/2 years. Surely there is a closure possible by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.22.113 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Microsoft Corp. → United States v. Microsoft – Sources ([5][6][7][8]) use "United States v. Microsoft Corp.", "United States v. Microsoft Corporation", and "United States v. Microsoft" ([9][10]). But I am again proposing abandonment of "Corp." in favor of concision. Because there was no strong consensus on changing Sega v. Accolade to its full case name, probably we should revisit the Microsoft issue right now and cite the Sega case as a reason. Even though MOS:LAW instructs people to use the available full case name as page name based on litigation (or something like that), and the guideline (not policy) uses the Microsoft case as an example, perhaps shortening the title is convenient for average readers. When the court was publicized in 1997 and 2001, many news articles used "United States v. Microsoft". Moreover, sources that significantly cover Microsoft's other cases use "v. Microsoft", like PR Newswire, Bloomberg, Geeks are Sexy blog, and Ars Technica. And, hopefully, readers can recognize "v. Microsoft" or "Microsoft v." without the Corporation or Corp., and identify "Microsoft" as easily the corporation, not a mere software, when the corp. is involved in one case (or bunch; look at those cases), or when a reader reads the case article. Also, scholarly articles (like [11][12][13]) use "v. Microsoft" often rather than "Microsoft Corp." As for MOS:LAW, one of us can either use a different example or eliminate the Microsoft example. And we can ignore MOS:LAW#Article titles and follow what WP:article titles says, like Criteria and Commonly-used names sections.(I must have misunderstood MOS:LAW. See more in Discussion section) Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. We just got through with the last move a month ago. Nothing has changed, and the closure of another article's RM as no consensus is not a valid basis for going through this again, so soon. GregJackP Boomer! 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Microsoft is the product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Which one? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

These days, probably Office? Windows? I have lost battles with both. Some say that to argue with Microsoft means you have already lost, the answer is Linux or Mac. It's not surprising to think that an entire government had a battle with the product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support I support this as policy part of the guideline (in line with WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, and WP:COMMONNAME), but, unfortunately, it is beating an old horse to death. While I do not believe consensus was reached with respect to the MOS:LEGAL proposal for relevant jurisdiction / Bluebook article naming (it was like 6-2 or 6-3 for), the policy decision has been made. When the policy eventually is brought back into line with WP:PRECISION, then we should reconsider this. But I don't think we should start the discussion again here like this, proposing a move in contradiction of the spirit of a recent policy change. However, I agree that MOS:LEGAL isn't a be-all-end-all policy decision, but merely a guideline—a default, if you will. The sources given clearly establish a WP:COMMONNAME basis for the move, not to say anything of having a basis in WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE as well. P.S. Microsoft is not a product, it is a company; I'm pretty sure the view that Microsoft is a product (much less the product) is a minority view of native English speakers. Int21h (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA (concision).

  The term Microsoft is very widely used to refer to the company, not to the product. People say "I'm running Windows", "Windows vs Linux", and "Do you have Word?"... not "I'm running Microsoft", "Microsoft vs Linux" and "Do you have Microsoft"?

  More importantly, this case is clearly and concisely identified as "United States vs Microsoft". It's certainly recognizable to anyone familiar with the case. The "Corp." is unnecessary precision. --B2C 17:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• People do say (have said) "I'm running Microsoft" and "Do you have Microsoft"?. The commonly recognized product is the program suite, not the operating system. I never saw anyone spell out Microsoft in MSDOS. Word was ambiguous with WordPerfect. Lotus123 was very popular before losing out to Microsoft (excel), and not because excel was better. In any case, such conversations were sloppy use of language, ambiguous jargon to overhear, and not the sort of thing that supports reference work material. Ltd. and Corp. and some other jargony abbreviations have long been seen attached to trademarks to for legally precise reasons. In legal matters, precision is important. Skipping the customary precision is amateurish. The most reliable sources are not amateurish, and so neither should we be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, let's agree to disagree about whether people colloquially say "I'm running Microsoft" and "Do you have Microsoft", as that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the term "Microsoft" is commonly used to refer to "the program suite" in reliable sources. Is that your claim? If so, can you back it up? --B2C 23:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Are you seriously asking whether people abbreviate "Microsoft Office" to "Microsoft"? All the time, colloquially.

  In reliable sources? No. But you should only be asking for reliable sources if I am seeking to move Microsoft Office to Microsoft (which would be a bad idea for multiple reasons). You don't need reliable sources for people to be confused as to a meaning of "Microsoft"

  NB. I consider ENeville to have more recently provided a much better argument for opposing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent about this. Including "Corp." adds clarity and precision, albeit precision that is only at best marginally necessary. If it were truly necessary then the company's article would be titled that way rather than simply "Microsoft." However, it is also harmless clarity and precision that isn't unnatural. But, we can't overrule the MOS:LEGAL guideline, which is clear on the issue to the point of using this title as an example. Change the guideline first. Disclaimer, I'm only here because of a message posted to my talk page. The current guideline is restrictive to the point that only editors with some legal background seem qualified to title these articles, and I'm not sure I like that. But neither do I like to see so much energy wasted on matters like this, when there are so many more blatant problems in Wikipedia, still waiting for someone to fix them. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: Change the guideline first. No. That doesn't work. Here's why. --B2C 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Law is already a detail-riddled artifice. Let's make the info on WP as accessible as possible by minimizing potential confusion. Let's use the formal title, so readers can confidently know they have the article on that case. ENeville (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• In #Requested move, there were some support votes and good arguments in favor of concision, yet opposers created and supported "Article titles" section, especially with RFC. The prior decision was based on MOS:LAW#Article title and its establishment. Now that Sega v. Accolade can ignore MOS:LAW (well, for now), and so can Roe v. Wade, probably the consensus here can overcome MOS:LAW's newer established portion. George Ho (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How does Roe v. Wade ignore MOS:LAW? It is titled according to Bluebook, and the structure of the article follows the MOS. If one minor gaming company case ignores the titling style, so what - we run around and decide we need to change the MOS? I don't think so. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. GregJackP Boomer! 00:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Found an example in case citation. And which page did The Bluebook use Roe v. Wade? I can't access to something that I don't have with me, and the online Bluebook requires subscription. As for the Microsoft thing, how harmful can ignoring jurisdiction/citation whatever do to the title? Breaking consistency? Making people not recognize "Microsoft" as the corporation without "Corp."? --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the 19th Edition. In Bluepages, at Case Name (at B4, p.7) "For names of individuals, use only the surname (family name), omitting given names and initials:". In Rules, at R.10.2 (pp. 89-95) "Generally, omit given names or initials of individuals...." The full title of what we call Roe v. Wade is actually Jane Roe v. Henry Wade v. James Hubert Hallford, M.D., John Doe and Mary Doe v. Henry Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); followed by Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The Bluebook does not list every specific case, it lists rules to be followed in styling the case name. Here, you drop all but the first parties, and omit their given names. Ergo, it becomes Roe v. Wade. What's the purpose of bringing this back up? A case of I don't like it? Would you prefer that I go back to the Sega v. Accolade article and start another move discussion because of the admin finding no consensus? Give it a break. GregJackP Boomer! 02:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I misunderstood MOS:LAW. It says that title must follow "the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." I believe that "v." is enough to follow; the rest may or may not be relevant, like "Corp.", unless extra precision is needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That belief ("that 'v.' is enough") would be incorrect. It clearly states the intent in the discussion for including article titles in the MOS, stating that "Articles on cases should only be shortened/paraphrased/abbreviated if shortened/paraphrased/abbreviated according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." Deleting additional information or words is not part of that guideline. Again, what is the purpose of bringing this back up? GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet I don't see where omission is discouraged, either. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, what is the purpose of bringing this back up? GregJackP Boomer! 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What "this"? If you mean my interpretation of the MOS:LAW, I just had to remind the readers to help them decide correctly if they want to vote and discuss. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"This" is a move discussion 1-1/2 months after the last move discussion. What is the purpose for bringing it back up so soon? GregJackP Boomer! 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In hopes that consensus may change. We had some support before the title guideline was created. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Omission of words, where the title is not unduly long, only makes things more difficult for readers expecting to find the missing word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How would a reader identify "v. Microsoft" as a product when there's a "v." in it? That would take someone less intelligent than Gomer Pyle (or Homer Simpson) to see the whole title as referring to just products as the defendants. Or can you prove otherwise. And readers can understand the nature of the topic, regardless of title change, right? George Ho (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you over value concision. Extreme concision leads to unanticipated confusions. The current title is fine. No one is limited by having "Corp." appear in the title. Reasonable readers may expect to see "Corp." in the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How many "reasonable readers"? Are they majority? Which group belong to majority? I mean, how would people assume that the defendant is the product when "Corp." is scrapped out? George Ho (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a minority would be inconvenienced, but zero would be convenienced by your rename. When looking for, or having a passing interested in legal cases, I think readers will be receptive to more legally precise names, like "Apple Inc." and "Microsoft Corp." In legal contexts, the Inc or Corp makes the title more recognizable amongst an overwhelmingly common use of Microsoft in other contexts. But really it is better to follow the convention of the most reliable sources than to do other random things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you know? I found Microsoft v. Shah, Microsoft v. AT&T, Microsoft v. Lindows, Microsoft v. TomTom, and Microsoft v. Motorola. Well, there is Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft, but that's a legal dispute. There are more containing v. and Microsoft. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So? Other stuff exists. We can change those to the correct titles with little to no problem. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you dare!! We haven't established a clear consensus yet, even in prior discussion. The prior consensus said, shorten into "Corp." We haven't got a consensus on either omitting or keeping "Corporation" because of the wake of the newer guideline. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But George, we do have consensus. It's called MOS:LAW and has a whole section on article titles. Any editor can make any uncontroversial move, which that would be. That's called WP:BRD. If someone doesn't agree, then they can request to move the article back. GregJackP Boomer! 07:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Was MOS:LAW created in order to retain "Corp." and prevent omission? George Ho (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it was created to standardize articles in the legal area. Part of that includes how articles are titled. GregJackP Boomer! 07:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LAW allows omission, even when it doesn't mention keeping or omitting "Corp."? George Ho (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why we have the Bluebook. See Rule 10.2.1(h), on p. 93. It covers keeping or omitting certain business terms. For example, if the company name is Wisconsin Packing Company, Incorporated, you cite it as "Wisconsin Packing Co." You don't have that here. I understand that you are having difficulty with this - what the MOS:LAW did is incorporate the standards of an outside authority, the Bluebook. We do the same thing in other areas, so we don't have to write policies on everything. It would probably help you if you could get a mentor from WP:LAW or WP:SCOTUS. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE is actually a pretty good argument to make in RMs. WP:CRITERIA says titles should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." I suppose you can disagree as a matter of opinion, but in this case OSE is a policy-based argument. You're correct that we could also change those titles if we retain this one, however. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OSE isn't a policy; it's an essay. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: How can this proposal's violating MOS:LAW be harmful? We got Sega v. Accolade "violating" the guideline because "no consensus" was made to use the more elaborate name. George Ho (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not the accepted method of changing the Manual of Style. It is a collateral attack on the guideline, a circuitous way of attempting to change a policy that you don't like. The accepted method would be to change the guideline, then come back to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. Consensus is also developed by custom—a.k.a. common practice. Not everyone knows about, or uses, the MOS talk pages. It is entirely possible that multiple interested parties, other than the 8 or so users who participated in the discussions at hand, may have simply missed the 25 day discussion on a talk page that even I did not know existed. I'm a top 5000 editor, and I didn't know about it. What does that tell you? That tells me that the other hundreds of thousands of editors didn't know either. But they exercise their consensus-building by their edits, not by the discussion on the page they didn't know about. And this is important. Guidelines reflect consensus, not vice-versa. Guidelines are "sets of best practices"; they are not policies, which "have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow". Int21h (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this comes from watching and observing for many years and being a top 3000 editor by edit count overall (well, almost, at 3030), by being 409 by recent edits (vs. what, 1000 or so?), and by creating featured and good content. When the Bradley/Chelsea Manning issue came up, editors went to the policy and guideline pages to fix it. When the sock labeling issue came up, editors went to the policy page. BTW, if you are going to tout your own stats as an argument, you might check what the other editors have. Changing it at each individual article is not the accepted way that the community addresses these issues, regardless of you may or may not have observed or known. GregJackP Boomer! 03:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL No, you misunderstand. My point was that very few knew about, or participated in, the MOS:LAW discussion, and therefore it is not a definitive reflection of common, or best, practices. This is in support of my argument that MOS:LAW does not reflect consensus, and should not be taken as a be-all-end-all argument position. Int21h (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LAW is not a policy; it is a guideline—a default. I'll tell what is a policy, which "users should normally follow": WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISION. Int21h (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And MOS:LAW is compliant with COMMONNAME, CONCISE, and PRECISION. If you follow MOS:LAW, you are in fact following the other three. If you are going to look at reliable sources for legal cases, you will want to look at how the legal community addresses those cases. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for how to address reliable sources. That means that for legal articles, you'll want to look first at what law journals and treatises say, and how they cite the material. That's where you get the COMMONNAME, not from some computer blog. It works in reverse too. You don't cite law reviews for an article on an operating system. GregJackP Boomer! 03:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See, now I think we're getting to a substantive issue: what holds greater weight in WP:COMMONNAME issues, mass publications or trade journals? Shouldn't lay referencing schemes be given deference in a work (Wikipedia) meant for laymen? Int21h (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I see the problem with using collateral attacks (LOL). I don't really deal with these issues a whole lot. Int21h (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I really should create an article for Collateral attack (law) - it really isn't res judicata, which is the reason I linked it to an outside definition instead of to the wiki article. Anyway, the point is we should address it there, not at each and every article. GregJackP Boomer! 05:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes well its funny to me because collateral attacks are not only allowed, but common (i.e., the federal habeas corpus statute). But yes, I see the point. Int21h (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that federal habeas statute is Kafkaesque now, and almost impossible to file, much less win. GregJackP Boomer! 06:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; this case may not affect other titles, like Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Well, "Apple vs. Microsoft" is a well-known term, and "vs" is also spelled as "v". But I wonder if that would affect Microsoft v. Motorola, now retitled. George Ho (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it will not affect other titles, just as Sega didn't affect this title. Why would it? No sensible editor would believe that the titling decision of one article affects any other articles. We base titling on broad guidelines and policies, so a change to those would affect other articles. This decision will not. GregJackP Boomer! 06:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you also referring to other Microsoft-related court cases? George Ho (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am. Why would I not be? The COMMONNAME of a court case here has nothing to do with the COMMONNAME of a separate court case. Completely separate and unrelated, for which you would have to do a case by case evaluation of the commonly used name, using reliable sources of the type normally needed. In other words, a legal text would weigh more than a law journal article, which weighs more heavily than a regular book, more than a newspaper, and more than a blog. You don't just "count" the entries in a google search without looking at the actual sources. So all this RM does is establish the title for this one article. Period. If you want to change the others, you have to do it one at a time. GregJackP Boomer! 08:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is reminding me of the almost endless discussions about using dashes on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes). There were some who wanted to keep things simple by just using hyphens for everything, and banning dashes, but that view did not prevail. The consensus was, and remains: "Hyphens can be used for initial entry of any of the above, and replacement with a more precise form may be done by other subsequent editors. Disrupting Wikipedia to constantly complain about the consensus for the more precise forms can be annoying." Correspondingly, us lay editors are free to start an article about a court case with whatever title we can find in a reliable source, and if that source happens to be a mainstream general interest publication that doesn't conform to Bluebook, then fine. If some lawyer or paralegal editors want to fix the titles to conform to Bluebook, then fine–as long as we have sufficient editors with such knowledge and resources to maintain the goals of the higher guideline. Myself, I don't have a copy of the Bluebook, and even if I did, am not inclined to take the time and effort to understand how to use it. If we disrespect the guideline by ignoring it or overruling it, then we are de facto demoting it to WP:ESSAY status by backdoor means, and we shouldn't do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• @B2C. Interesting, but that's merely your opinion. It cites no policy or guideline, nor does it present a significant argument on why we should agree with your opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic has a title, formally even, and the article should be so titled. My concern has been to title court case articles canonically, so that readers can recognize their topic with certainty. I consider it comparable to, say, the title of a literary work, or a movie. A court decision is an accepted, if imperfect, output of human effort, not a continuously evolving conceptual constant, like giant panda or Solar System, even if the discussion of an adjudicated case, and the principles it addresses, may have an ongoing life of its own. You might ask someone, conversationally, if they've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "Thanks for All the Fish", but we use the canonical titles for the articles. Given the daunting nature of law, by virtue of the apparently inherent human capacity for endless rule making (as we sit here, rule making), I think there is an elevated need to make the titles of articles on legal cases orthodox, so that the average reader has a minimum of hurdles to overcome in their quest for knowledge ("Why is this article title different from the PDF of the actual court decision I'm looking at? Is there some subsidiary I'm supposed to know about?"). So that's my reasoning in general and in this case: consistency and recognizability over concision for these already-titled topics that are cruxes often intimidating yet important. ENeville (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Multi-tagging

I have done multi-tagging before, and I realize that doing so is not the only answer. I was advised to fix content myself. So what's wrong with this article... well, besides the title? --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained a bit below. An example of a factual error. The previous infobox identified the panel as including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, except in 2001 she was sitting on the Supreme Court. Instead of recognizing that Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit was Douglas H. Ginsburg, Ruth was added to the case.

That's just one of the more obvious errors. The lede doesn't summarize the article. The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten. GregJackP Boomer! 02:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's still one too many. Can you replace some tags with one tag, like {{cleanup}}? George Ho (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; your tagging was reverted. You can read WP:overtagging, an essay. George Ho (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tags

I had primarily dealt with this article merely as regards the title, and decided to look over it. Once I did I realized that the article is WP:CRAP.

• The cited case is a middle appellate case in the litigation. The case started out at:

• District Court, finding of monopoly and order of remedial action (97 F.Supp.2d 59);

• direct appeal to Supreme Court denied and remanded to appeals court (530 U.S. 1301);

• D.C. Circuit (253 F.3d 34) (the case this article covers);

• rehearing denied and cert. denied (not reported in F.3d and 534 U.S. 952);

• District Court on remand (231 F.Supp.2d 144);

• motion to intervene denied (not reported in F.Supp.2d);
• second motion to intervene denied (not reported in F.Supp.2d);

• aff'd in part, rev'd in part by D.C. Circuit (373 F.3d 1199).

None of this is explained, and it does not look like anyone who has a clue of what is meant by procedural history participated in the editing of the article. The issues are not explained. The legal rule is not addressed. All the refs, while apparently reliable, address this from a computing standpoint, while this is a legal issue. Unsurprisingly, the actual facts are often in error due to this, which is why WP:MOSLAW recommends using both primary and secondary sources for legal articles. The citation style is also a mess.

This article needs to be redone, preferably by someone with at least some knowledge of the law. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted a long list of tags from the top of the article. I'm sure the editor means well, and wants to help improve the article, but they have to realise that for readers and prospective fellow-editors coming to an article that begins in that way, it just looks like a screenful of bile. I'm sure the editor realises that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where people work together on article text by consensus. You can't easily do that when you start with a screenful of criticism like that. In order to encourage others to want to help improve this article, I suggest we start with one constructive suggestion - a sentence or two of proposed article text with a good citation, say - and work on from there. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on my comments above, I added Expert needed tag. I will go through and identify information on each specific tag and re-tag, since you want specifics on each area. GregJackP Boomer! 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you misread me. I asked for 'a sentence or two of proposed article text with a good citation', not more tags. You seem to have misread your recent tag too: it says, "Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article," and you haven't done that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I have addressed it. My comment above, from yesterday stated it perfectly:

"That's just one of the more obvious errors. The lede doesn't summarize the article. The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten." Is that somehow unclear? I am addressing a reason for each tag on this talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede rewrite tag

I've re-added the Lede re-write tag. The lede doesn't summarize the article. It is written like an introduction and stops at the start of the case at the District Court. GregJackP Boomer! 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

References

FN 1. Reference no longer shows a "History of IE" and does not support the referenced text. May be replaced with Derek Ferguson, Mobile.NET, pp. 23-42, (2001). GregJackP Boomer! 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Settlement section does not contain sufficient information

I have to say that the section is not coherently organized and should really be rewritten. First telling about the actual settlement, then what Microsoft's obligations were under it, and then what people said about it.

It is not even clear when the settlement expired. Was it 2007? or was it extended till 2012 or was only part of it extended till 2012 or did that not even happen?

What I looked up to see about was the question of Microsoft not being able to coerce computer makers to install MS Windows on their machines. I noticed that this had started happening again in 2013 and there it was impossible to purchase a PC with any other operating system installed although it had been 2 years ago. So, it would be of some interest to know when Section III. A. I. of the final judgement expired and perhaps some discussion of the issue as to whether it was ever properly enforced.

Tyrerj (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

not freeware but sold

Citation needed. By personal experience, web browsers at the time were downloadable at no cost (aside from access-to-internet charges) by anyone. They may have also been sold on discs offline, but they were also free to download at one's leisure. Web browsers need not have been purchased at the time, or ever. 72.182.148.220 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Right - I saw that too. Done.

Requested move 17 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for any title at this time, per the linked discussion at Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. United States. This article has only been at the current title since March 1, so I will move it back to the stable title, which is the one being requested here. I am under the impression that a multimove request to move this article to United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001) and the other article to United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2018) might be successful, but the burden for laying out a rationale for such moves should be upon the editors who want to make the change, particularly as the current title of both articles was previously determined by talk page consensus. Dekimasuよ! 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

---

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001) → United States v. Microsoft Corp. – During the 2017-2018 US Supreme Court term, there was an appeal under the name "United States v. Microsoft Corp." and so this article was moved to a new title with the disambiguator "(2018)" added and United States v. Microsoft Corp. became a disambiguation page. However, that appeal was dismissed as moot and since the main association of that other case then became the decision of the lower court ("Microsoft Corp. v. United States") the other case was renamed. Since this article is very noteworthy, far more so than the dismissed appeal, I moved the disambiguation page "United States v. Microsoft Corp." to "United States v. Microsoft Corp. (disambiguation)", so that this article could be moved to main article title as it should be undisputably the primary topic, which per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be at the name without the disambiguator. I have made all the other relevant page moves to make way for this page's move. There was a brief discussion/agreement at Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. United States#Name change back to 2nd Circuit appeal? AHeneen (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• US v. Microsoft Bill Gates Color.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Microsoft logo (2012).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Subliminal advertising and squinted eye syndrome

Promotes subliminal advertising and squinted eye at mass scale. 115.96.217.220 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

EC/DMA

Related: MS to comply with EU-DMA. See https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2023/11/16/previewing-changes-in-windows-to-comply-with-the-digital-markets-act-in-the-european-economic-area/ Kr 17387349L8764 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)