Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#41

Post by danielmarkbruce »

treyd wrote: post #39
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was elected . The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do. If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it.

Let's hopw this whole federalism thing works out and states pick up the slack when the federal government can't.

As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#42

Post by wyldfire »

ethbr1 wrote: post #35
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in…

It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.

Ah, yes - let's make it great again. Like it was in 1875!

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#43

Post by threeseed »

simula67 wrote: post #19

I hope they at least split Office and Windows into seperate companies. Hopefully, then we may get Microsoft Office on Linux.

Office is deprecated.

Microsoft 365 has Word, Excel etc. but they are slowly transitioning to the web.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#44

Post by ben_w »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #33
netsharc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business. Oh, honey[1]. If the apparatchik remains spineless and lets them get away with it, there'll be some remnants the supposed agenda, but I think the real agenda is whatever makes them money. Already people close to him are charging others for access to him/cushy jobs[2]. Gosh, I'm trying to re-find…

It sounds like your conspiracy theory is that Trump is just trying to pull off a big payday? I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that. As to giving free hotel stays to the government, I'm not well attuned to the conduct of the ultra-rich, but in the reasonably comfortable ranks of the GS-teens, I assure you no one is lining up to spend his own money to make government work, despit…

> I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that.

It's by far the least absurd thing about Trump, who also got a press conference in a garden centre car park between a sex shop and a crematorium, which was then was mocked by furries who turned it into a VRChat environment, and the lawyer presenting that press conference got disbarred for trying to overturn the election; while the man himself has 34 felony charges for falsifying business records to hide showing he paid off a porn star that he claims not to have had sex with even though the sex part and the payment for silence is totally legal just you need to not lie about how much you spend in total on campaign finance and business expenses.

I think that's the kind of setup that Douglas Adams or Armando Iannucci would use.

Oh, and I almost forgot about the gold-coloured toilet.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#45

Post by threeseed »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #40
guhidalg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement. This kind of government is descr…

This is a disingenuous take. The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.

It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules.

It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days.

Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#46

Post by threeseed »

PKop wrote: post #36
panarky wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom.

I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy.

> What kind of government is this? Not democracy

The Westminster system on which almost all of the world's democracies are based rely on an independent, unelected civil servants who serve the government of the day.

You will never get well-run governments if you require every person involved to be elected and an expert on politics and not on specific subjects e.g. renewable energy policy.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#48

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

sleepybrett wrote: post #29
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in…

> I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. my dude, we passed that in 2016

I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now.

Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer.

Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#49

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #31
sleepybrett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. my dude, we passed that in 2016

my dude, we passed that in 2008

Why do you think that?

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#50

Post by danielmarkbruce »

threeseed wrote: post #45
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a disingenuous take. The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.

It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules. It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days. Because as we've seen time and time…

Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies.
Post reply on HN