From: "Paul Ranson" 

The more you quote the stupider the judge looks.

"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:onnc4vocjg0reamd7rehipjmnmuq9gakmt{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:06:37 -0800, Ellen K. 
> I had similar problems with IE 3 and 4, which is why I went through the
> hassle of trying to uninstall IE and installing an alternate browser.

All you had to do was install 'an alternate browser', it worked then and it
works now.

> By the by, to insert some reality in this conversatoin, here's an excerpt
> of Judge Jackson's Findings of fact that is appropriate.
> ...

It's not worth commenting on the crap that you've quoted. Clearly the
concept of a judge finding 'fact' has been wildly reinterpreted by Jackson.

If Windows were cheaper now than it were, you might have a point. If Web
applications were still pie in the sky, you might have a point. If Java had
some inherent 'goodness' that MS had stifled, you might have a point.

I completed, calculated and filed my tax return online this year. The
requirements were

a.. An Internet browser - version 4.0 (or later) of Microsoft Internet
Explorer or version 4.6 (or later) of Netscape Navigator or Netscape
Communicator. (Your Internet browser must have JavaScript and cookies
enabled and be capable of supporting 128-bit SSL).

How did Judge Jackson make this possible? How did MS make it impossible?
Where are the 'facts'? The UK Inland Revenue is looking likely to be
expiring an enormous number of Windows installations from their desktops,
this won't be because of Judge Jackson or any Anti-trust actions, it'll be
because the alternatives give more function for less investment. As it
should be.

Paul

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4