From: Mike '/m' 


Once again, that is your opinion.

 /m

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:12:35 -0000, "Paul Ranson"
 wrote:

>It's only interesting in that it shows bad law and the cowardly end of the
>legal system in action.
>
>I do wonder who your propaganda is aimed at. Perhaps you should move it to
>the linuxhelp group?
>
>Paul
>
>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:hoh84v891liv7sfkfgc0gfb70it0gg8ka3{at}4ax.com...
>>
>> Whatever you or I think does not matter.
>>
>> Microsoft was convicted of committing a felony.   Neither your nor my
>> opinion on it will change the decision.  So deal with it.
>>
>>  /m
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:28:43 -0000, "Paul Ranson"
 wrote:
>>
>> >Uninteresting evidence that the judges are dim. And the lawyers arguing
>the
>> >case are dimmer.
>> >
>> >Does your Court of Appeals really think that it's
inappropriate for an OS
>to
>> >be able to render HTML? That's the implication from your quote. Given
>that
>> >every other desktop OS is integrating browser technology the argument is
>> >surely moot.
>> >
>> >(The last sentence you quote is gibberish. I'm not addressing that.)
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>> >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>> >news:t8u74vgc34t7b0b3cbovugjlijitsgkblo{at}4ax.com...
>> >> Some interesting words from the decision of the Court of Appeals:
>> >>
>> >> ====
>> >> ... Although Microsoft does make some claims regarding
the benefits of
>> >> integrating the browser and the operating system, it
neither specifies
>nor
>> >> substantiates those claims.  Nor does it argue that
excluding IE from
>the
>> >> Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code achieves any
>integrative
>> >> benefit.  Plaintiffs plainly made out a prima facie case of harm to
>> >> competition in the operating system market by demonstrating that
>> >> Microsoft's actions increased its browser usage share ....
>> >> ====
>> >>
>> >>  /m
>> >>
>>

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