From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2CECA.1AB8A7A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Is there some criminal action of which you are aware that is a secret =
to the rest of us?  Or maybe you just mean that you have convicted.

   It's also interesting how you jump all over the place when you spin =
your FUD.  You can't support your own claims so you try to find someone =
else mailing a different claim that sounds similar.  When that fails you =
switch topics.

   You did get something right though.  What you think does not matter.  =
You are wrong though in claiming what Paul thinks does not.  Paul =
appropriately replied to your FUD with a refutation of a concrete = example
of how IE integration benefits him.

Rich

  "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_009F_01C2CECA.1AB8A7A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Is there
some criminal =
action of which=20
you are aware that is a secret to the rest of us?  Or maybe you =
just mean=20
that you have convicted.
 
   It's also
interesting how =
you jump all=20
over the place when you spin your FUD.  You can't support your own
= claims=20
so you try to find someone else mailing a different claim that sounds=20
similar.  When that fails you switch
topics.
 
   You did
get something =
right=20
though.  What you think does not matter.  You are wrong
though = in=20
claiming what Paul thinks does not.  Paul appropriately replied to
= your FUD=20
with a refutation of a concrete example of how IE integration benefits=20
him.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:hoh84v891li=
v7sfkfgc0gfb70it0gg8ka3{at}4ax.com...Whatever=20
  you or I think does not matter.Microsoft was convicted of =
committing a=20
  felony.   Neither your nor myopinion on it
will change =
the=20
  decision.  So deal with
it. /mOn Fri, 7 Feb =
2003=20
  21:28:43 -0000, "Paul Ranson" <paul{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:paul{at}barkto.com">paul{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote:>Uninteresting evidence that the judges
are dim. And =
the=20
  lawyers arguing the>case are
dimmer.>>Does your =
Court of=20
  Appeals really think that it's inappropriate for an OS to>be =
able to=20
  render HTML? That's the implication from your quote. Given =
that>every=20
  other desktop OS is integrating browser technology the argument=20
  is>surely moot.>>(The
last sentence you quote is=20
  gibberish. I'm not addressing =
that.)>>Paul>>"Mike=20
  '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote in=20
  =
message>news:t8u74vgc34t7b0b3cbovugjlijitsgkblo{at}4ax.com...>=
>=20
  Some interesting words from the decision of the Court of=20
  Appeals:>>>>
=3D=3D=3D=3D>> ... Although =
Microsoft does=20
  make some claims regarding the benefits of>>
integrating the =
browser=20
  and the operating system, it neither specifies nor>> =
substantiates=20
  those claims.  Nor does it argue that excluding IE from =
the>>=20
  Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code achieves any=20
  integrative>> benefit.  Plaintiffs
plainly made out a =
prima=20
  facie case of harm to>> competition in the
operating system =
market=20
  by demonstrating that>> Microsoft's actions increased its =
browser=20
  usage share ....>> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D>>>> =20
  /m>>

------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2CECA.1AB8A7A0--

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