How to Know Your iPod Model
If you have an old iPod but aren't sure exactly which model it is, check the info at the Web page linked below. You'll find lots of photos and information that will help you determine exactly which model you have.
Visit Identifying iPod Models
Written by
Tonya Engst
Recent TidBITS Talk Discussions
- Alternatives to MobileMe for syncing calendars between iPad/Mac (1 message)
- Free anti-virus for the Mac (20 messages)
- iTunes 10 syncing iPod Touch 4.1 (2 messages)
- Thoughts about Ping (16 messages)
Related Articles
- It's All About Trust (24 Apr 95)
- Truth, Justice, and the American Way (01 May 95)
- Microsoft Antitrust Victory (26 Jun 95)
- Financial Software Shake-Up (17 Oct 94)
Other articles in the series Playing Monopoly!
- Microsoft Settles with AOL for $750 Million (02 Jun 03)
- Final Judgment in Microsoft Antitrust Case (04 Nov 02)
- Was Bill Gates Lying? (29 Apr 02)
- Proposed Microsoft Settlement Rejected (14 Jan 02)
- Into the Briar Patch: Microsoft's Self-Serving Settlement (03 Dec 01)
- Government Drops Microsoft Breakup Effort (10 Sep 01)
- Microsoft Appeals Monopoly Ruling to Supreme Court (13 Aug 01)
- Breaking Up Is Hard to Do (02 Jul 01)
- Judge Orders Microsoft Breakup; Company to Appeal (12 Jun 00)
- Microsoft Violated Anti-Trust Laws (03 Apr 00)
- Judge Finds Microsoft a Monopoly (08 Nov 99)
- Microsoft Treading Antitrust Waters? (25 Mar 91)
- Microsoft and Intuit Terminate Merger (22 May 95)
- Truth, Justice, and the American Way (01 May 95)
- Antitrust Lawsuits Filed Against Microsoft (18 May 98)
- Who Do You Antitrust? Part 2 (23 Nov 98)
- Who Do You Antitrust? Part 1 (16 Nov 98)
- Microsoft Antitrust Case to Supreme Court (26 Jun 00)
Published in TidBITS 264.
Subscribe to our weekly email edition.
- Administrivia
- O Pioneer!
- Apprentice Phone Update
- MacInTax Update
- PowerBook Price Drop
- Eudora & Attachments
- An Unpleasant Voyage
- Nisus Writer 4.0.6, Part 2: Word and Document Processing
Can't Buy Me Love - Microsoft Antitrust Ruling
In an ironic Valentine's Day present, U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin on February 14th rejected an agreement made between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department regarding charges that Microsoft licensing practices stifle competition. The dispute primarily involves how Microsoft licenses operating systems to personal computer manufacturers, including restrictive arrangements that allegedly exclude other operating systems and that may require manufacturers to pay a per-unit fee to Microsoft even on computers that do not contain Microsoft software. Additionally, Microsoft's proposed licensing arrangements for Windows 95, due to be released later this year, have drawn sharp criticism from computer manufacturers, who admit they have little choice but to agree to terms Microsoft dictates.
Microsoft had reached an agreement with the Justice Department to change the way it licenses its products to personal computer manufacturers. However, Judge Sporkin rejected the agreement on the grounds it did not constitute an effective antitrust remedy and that it failed to adequately address Microsoft's past and future monopolistic practices. In Judge Sporkin's words, "simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already gained." In strong language, Judge Sporkin also characterized the agreement as "too little, too late."
The Justice Department has decided to appeal Judge Sporkin's ruling, and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno defended the original agreement, saying that the judge is going beyond his legal authority by examining Microsoft business practices not alleged in the original complaint. Not surprisingly, within a few hours Microsoft announced it would join the Justice Department's appeal of the ruling.
Although the proposed $1.5 billion Microsoft/Intuit merger (see TidBITS-248) is a completely separate case being examined by the Justice Department, Intuit's stock price fell when Judge Sporkin's ruling was announced last week.
The direct implications of this ruling on the Macintosh community are comparatively slight, since the case primarily concerns Microsoft's DOS and Windows licensing. However, as Apple licenses the Macintosh and its operating system to third parties, it might take care to notice where Microsoft is allocating its legal budget. Ironically, an argument could be made that a successful appeal of Judge Sporkin's decision could be financially advantageous for Apple in the future, particularly if the Mac clone market takes off. Since a successful Macintosh clone market will eat into Apple's hardware business, a legal precedent for restrictive OS licensing practices might allow Apple to earn back some of that money in the form of licensing fees if the clone market proves viable.
Typed notes are blended with recorded audio, video, and slides
to create notes that make more sense when you need them most.
Learn more at <http://www.usefulfruit.com/tb>!