On Feb 8, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:
So, the simple fact that it was NOT Gates who said this is of no
relevance. Acknowledging that it was an Apple guy, not an MS guy,
would interfere too much with MS-bashing. Can't have that.
Not that the facts have anything to do with what Chris espouses...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT
"106. In their discussions with Apple, Microsoft's representatives
made it clear that, if Apple continued to market multimedia playback
software for Windows 95 that presented a platform for content
development, then Microsoft would enter the authoring business to
ensure that those writing multimedia content for Windows 95
concentrated on Microsoft's APIs instead of Apple's. The Microsoft
representatives further stated that, if Microsoft was compelled to
develop and market authoring tools in competition with Apple, the
technologies provided in those tools might very well be inconsistent
with those provided by Apple's tools. Finally, the Microsoft
executives warned, Microsoft would invest whatever resources were
necessary to ensure that developers used its tools; its investment
would not be constrained by the fact that authoring software generated
only modest revenue."
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
