Pages not Rendering Properly?
Getting Started With Linux
Terms and conditons of webhosting
Finally it seems that MS are being treated fairly in a court of law, or to be more accurate their competitors are. Following the EU decision, MS has not only levelled accusations of unfair practice at the EU's trustee (Who was partially selected by them) but has gone to the US courts to try and get information from it competitors (To me it is remeniscent of the child who goes running to Mummy when Daddy says no) but for once the US courts seem to be treated MS as it should be. This story describes how yet another US court has denied MS's demands that its competitors (In this case Novell) turn over documentation related to the EU anti-trust case.
I am no expert, but it seems to me that MS has come unstuck having realised that the EC cannot be paid off, and that in reality it has no defence. The 'Documentation" they turned over is laughable. Source code != Documentation. Give me source code for a program and I may be able to tell you its intended purpose, I may even be able to write a program to interact with it. Documentation that defines the protocols used, and all the information required to implement these protocols will allow me to write something that can interact with your program (Coding skills permitting) MS employ some of the finest software engineers in the world, and they will surely know this, perhaps the legal department does not. Rather than following the spoil brat part (To return to my spoilt child analogy) it surely makes sense for them to write the documentation and save themselves a lot of money? Why would they not do this? The only answer I can think of is that they do not want to allow competition to implement software to interact with their products. If that is the case then the Anti-trust investigation is most certainly justified.