The judge doesn't know the "technical" difference between de-install and remove, and has the nerve to go public flouting the erroneous findings of a non-scientific test, apparently in a eterimental attempt at MSFT's position.
Dear, I find myself repeating myself ad nauseum again, but it seems to go with the territory here. Yes, that bozo Judge is a fool, thinking that "uninstall" means the opposite of install, like, remove, like, what happens when you go through the motions under add/remove programs, install/uninstall tab for the things on the list that Microsoft doesn't deem essential for monopolizing the internet. Of course, I can't quite verify what uninstall means in this particular context, because IE doesn't show up on the uninstall list for me. It's just not fair!
And you think these guys are technically inclined?
Oh, about as technically inclined as you, my friend. Technically, Microsoft Rules, right? Legally, ethicly, economicly, financially, you name it, there's not much more to be said. No one else could possibly understand what's going on here. To repeat again, I wouldn't worry too much about the Judge getting the technical things straight, other factions of the ilk are at hand to lend assistance in determining what, exactly, is contained in those 228 files.
Cheers, Dan. |
