From: "Robert G Lewis" 

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:
> >>
> >> ====
> >> ... 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