Patrick Gallagher wrote:
> JTK wrote:

[snip]

[PS: WHY DOES HITTING ENTER *STILL* DOUBLE-SPACE EVERYTHING, GOD!]

>> Yeah whatever.  I fully expect AOL to drop the suit in a month or so 
>> now that they see the non-reaction it's getting. 
> 
> 
> Pipe dream?

Your words.  Well said, but your words.

>  Much of the antitrust case that MS just lost

See, I keep hearing that they "lost" too.  What did they lose exactly? 
There's still a single Microsoft Inc., right?  Still nobody willing to 
compete with them, right?

> was based on 
> their behavior towards Netscape Communications - which is the violation 
> that actually got them convicted of monopoly abuse.

Don't "convictions" usually result in "sentencing"?  There's been 
nothing like that in this case, at least that I've noticed.

>  Seeking private 
> damages against a sealed conviction in this case would be simple even if 
> the entire jury was MS employees - because the conviction has already 
> happened.
> 

So they can just show up at the courthouse and say "gimme my money!" 
Great!  Oh, wait, no, they have to show how their own complete and utter 
ineptness was somehow Microsoft's fault.  They gonna drag in Mozilla's 
stinking carcass as Exhibit A?

> Netscape may have made mistakes along the way, but thise mistakes were 
> the equivelant of stalling a car... unfortunately, a Sherman Tank named 
> Microsoft was on their tail, and crushed them before they could recover 
> - using illegal tactics. Fortunately AOL bought the company and provided 
> funding so they could continue their work,

Correction - so *YOU* could continue their work.  Didn't quite work out 
how they thought it would, so now they're going to punt.

> so the biggest damage done 
> was forcing Netscape to lose all independence.
> 

BAHAHHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Wowzers, THERE'S one I hadn't heard before: Blaming *Microsoft* for AOL 
buying Netscape!

Is Microsoft responsible for the death of the dinosaurs as well!?!?  The 
animals I mean, not the companies that refuse to produce a competitive 
product and die because of it.

> Patrick
> 



Reply via email to