Childish rudeness? How rude! Everything I argued in favor of for the last 5 months? What, precisely, have I argued in favor of for the last 5 months, oh master of cheesy high school debate tricks?
My stab in the dark is that it totally eliminates the validity of any case the DOJ would make for tying products since the individual products were not tied, but a single product marketed as integrated.
Stab in the dark, indeed. What ever happened to the simple contractual matter? Anyway, you're the one that's into precedents. Lest we forget, read what you typoed last October:
Dan, all of that typing and you have said nothing. MSFT has set no precedent, hih? So I assume that the decision handed down by the Justice department on per processeor deals, OS bundling and online networks must simply be in my imagination. If not, what does it mean. The JD has already rendered a decision on MSFT. Their decision is an interpretation of the law, by the top cops in the country. Their decision apparently states that MSFT is currently, and has not historically been in no major violation of anti-trust policies as currently interpreted by our nations honorable adjudication system (sans the decree issued, of course). If you don't like it, fine. If you don't agree with thier decision, that is fine as well, but stop pretending that it didn't happen. If it happened, it can be considered precedent. (from www2.techstocks.com
I still think you're a legal idiot, and a loon too, rude though that may be.
Cheers, Dan. |
