From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00DC_01C2CEE2.DDD50090
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Don't bother Mike Miller with details like this.  They conflict with =
his views and are consequently irrelevant.  He prefers to spin and twist =
to accomplish his agenda.

Rich

  "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message =
news:3e4472e6{at}w3.nls.net...
  Except this was a civil case not a criminal case.
  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
  news:qtn84v43so3u3kdhphqpmlpborp4pr5nta{at}4ax.com...
  > Google is your friend.
  >
  > Microsoft was found, among other things, guilty of violating section =
2 of
  > the Sherman Anti-trust Act.  Indeed, the portion of the decison that =
I
  > quoted was one of the areas where Microsoft was found guilty of =
violating
  > section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Another area involved
  Microsoft's
  > behaviour in the java arena.
  >
  >
  > Look here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm  and =
read
  > the part that says:
  >
  > "Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
  > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or =
combine or
  > conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of =
the
  > trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, =
shall
  > be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
  punished
  > by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other
  > person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or =
by both
  > said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "
  >
  >
  > Personally, I think Microsoft got off easy.
  >
  >
  > But all this *does* beg the questions: how many corporations are =
allowed
  to
  > do business with convicted felons?   How many governments are =
allowed to
  do
  > business with convicted felons?  Maybe there is more to the move =
towards
  > Open Source than just governments and people who are looking for =
reliable
  > software.....
  >
  >
  >   /m
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:12:28 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"
  
  > wrote:
  >
  > >Microsoft was found to have abused their monopoly position, Unless =
I'm
  sadly
  > >mistaken this is not a criminal act, therefore not a felony.
  > >
  > >What MS did and does is bad enough. By posting incorrect inflated =
claims
  all
  > >you do is lose credibility and give support to MS. Which I don't =
think is
  > >what you intend.
  > >
  > >Bob Lewis
  > >
  > >"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:
  > >> >>
  > >> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D
  > >> >> ... 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 ....
  > >> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D
  > >> >>
  > >> >>  /m
  > >> >>
  > >>
  > >
  >


------=_NextPart_000_00DC_01C2CEE2.DDD50090
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Don't
bother Mike Miller =
with details=20
like this.  They conflict with his views and are consequently=20
irrelevant.  He prefers to spin and twist to accomplish his=20
agenda.
 
Rich
 

  "Robert G Lewis" <r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net>">mailto:r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net">r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:3e4472e6{at}w3.nls.net...Ex=
cept=20
  this was a civil case not a criminal case."Mike '/m'"
<mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
messagenews:qtn84v43so3=
u3kdhphqpmlpborp4pr5nta{at}4ax.com...>=20
  Google is your friend.>> Microsoft was
found, among =
other=20
  things, guilty of violating section 2 of> the Sherman =
Anti-trust=20
  Act.  Indeed, the portion of the decison that I> quoted =
was one of=20
  the areas where Microsoft was found guilty of violating> =
section 2 of=20
  the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Another area =
involvedMicrosoft's>=20
  behaviour in the java
arena.>>> Look here:
http://www" target="new">http://www.=">http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm">http://www.=
usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm =20
  and read> the part that
says:>> "Monopolizing =
trade a=20
  felony; penalty> Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt =
to=20
  monopolize, or combine or> conspire with any other person or =
persons,=20
  to monopolize any part of the> trade or commerce among the =
several=20
  States, or with foreign nations, shall> be deemed guilty of a =
felony,=20
  and, on conviction thereof, shall bepunished>
by fine not =
exceeding=20
  $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other> person, =
$350,000, or by=20
  imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both> said =
punishments,=20
  in the discretion of the court.
">>> Personally, =
I think=20
  Microsoft got off
easy.>>> But all this
*does* =
beg the=20
  questions: how many corporations are
allowedto> do business =
with=20
  convicted felons?   How many governments are allowed=20
  todo> business with convicted
felons?  Maybe there is =
more to=20
  the move towards> Open Source than just governments and people =
who are=20
  looking for reliable> =
software.....>>>  =20
 
/m>>>>>>>>
On =
Fri, 7=20
  Feb 2003 20:12:28 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"<r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net>&g=">mailto:r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net">r.g.lewis{at}verizon.net>&g=
t;=20
  wrote:>> >Microsoft was found to
have abused their =
monopoly=20
  position, Unless I'msadly> >mistaken
this is not a =
criminal act,=20
  therefore not a felony.> >>
>What MS did and does =
is bad=20
  enough. By posting incorrect inflated
claimsall> >you do =
is lose=20
  credibility and give support to MS. Which I don't think is> =
>what=20
  you intend.> >> >Bob
Lewis> >> =
>"Mike=20
  '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message> =
>news:hoh84v891liv7sfkfgc0gfb70it0gg8ka3{at}4ax.com...>=20
  >>> >> Whatever you or I
think does not =
matter.>=20
  >>> >> Microsoft was
convicted of committing a=20
  felony.   Neither your nor my>
>> opinion on it =
will=20
  change the decision.  So deal with it.>
>>>=20
  >>  /m>
>>> >> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 =

  21:28:43 -0000, "Paul Ranson" <paul{at}barkto.com>wrote:>=">mailto:paul{at}barkto.com">paul{at}barkto.com>wrote:>=
=20
  >>> >> >Uninteresting
evidence that the judges =
are dim.=20
  And the lawyersarguing>
>the> >> >case =
are=20
  dimmer.> >> >>
>> >Does your Court of =
Appeals=20
  really think that it's inappropriate for anOS> =
>to>=20
  >> >be able to render HTML? That's the implication from your =
quote.=20
  Given> >that> >>
>every other desktop OS is=20
  integrating browser technology the argumentis>
>> =
>surely=20
  moot.> >> >>
>> >(The last sentence =
you quote=20
  is gibberish. I'm not addressing that.)>
>> >> =
>>=20
  >Paul> >>
>> >> >"Mike '/m'"
<mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message>=20
  >> =
>news:t8u74vgc34t7b0b3cbovugjlijitsgkblo{at}4ax.com...>=20
  >> >> Some interesting words from the decision of the =
Court of=20
  Appeals:> >>
>>> >> >> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
  >> >> ... Although Microsoft does make some claims =
regarding the=20
  benefitsof> >> >>
integrating the browser and =
the=20
  operating system, it neitherspecifies>
>nor> =
>>=20
  >> substantiates those claims.  Nor does it argue that =
excluding=20
  IEfrom> >the>
>> >> Add/Remove =
Programs=20
  utility or commingling code achieves any> =
>integrative>=20
  >> >> benefit.  Plaintiffs plainly
made out a prima =
facie=20
  case of harm to> >> >>
competition in the operating =
system=20
  market by demonstrating that> >>
>> Microsoft's =
actions=20
  increased its browser usage share ....> >>
>> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
  >> >>> >>
>>  /m> >>=20
  >>> >>>=20
>>

------=_NextPart_000_00DC_01C2CEE2.DDD50090--

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