On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > violations. > > xan > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > Letter listing alleged violations
I saw nothing, not one word in either link, claiming that Microsoft gained anything from OEMs shutting down. Microsoft's settlement. If they were not guilty why did they pay a 750m > settlement? Maybe because it was cheaper than going through the trial, all the lawyer fees, the lost time, the bad press... 750M is a lot to me, but I don't make Billions every month. Whatever the details, MS is a convicted monopolist and has settled other > suits out of court. Its really simple enough for a child to understand. Yes, Ian, it is. Because MS has been convicted of breaking antitrust laws, apparently that means that anyone can accuse them of any action, compare them to any criminal or villian in history, and it's okay, because they've been convicted of a given crime. It makes me wonder, have you, Ian, or you, Jonathon, ever been convicted of any crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Have you ever been caught with a joint of pot? Have you ever been convicted of Jay walking? If so, maybe I will accuse you of killing my father. Because, *obviously* if you were convicted of one crime, you must be guilty of all crimes. It's really simple enough for a child to understand. A criminal is a criminal, right? Regardless of the details. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
