https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...: “Microsoft's obligations under the settlement, as originally drafted, expired on November 12, 2007.[36] However, Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and that if the plaintiffs later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement even as far as 2012, it would not object. The plaintiffs made clear that the extension was intended to serve only to give the relevant part of the settlement "the opportunity to succeed for the period of time it was intended to cover", rather than being due to any "pattern of willful and systematic violations".”
⇒ chances are Microsoft removed the info from their website.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...: “Microsoft's obligations under the settlement, as originally drafted, expired on November 12, 2007.[36] However, Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and that if the plaintiffs later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement even as far as 2012, it would not object. The plaintiffs made clear that the extension was intended to serve only to give the relevant part of the settlement "the opportunity to succeed for the period of time it was intended to cover", rather than being due to any "pattern of willful and systematic violations".”
⇒ chances are Microsoft removed the info from their website.
There is https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols..., though. Reading https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1996412, it seems that’s what that evolved into.
Thanks for your insight. I guess I'll have to dive into the wayback Machine