Oops, I picked the wrong current example to compare and contrast. The correct current example is
<This being the same legal branch that held the DoJ, the top cops in the land, had investigated Microsoft and found them "not a monopoly".>
You seem to be fond of posting this. Perhaps you disagree with it. Of course taken in context it would read that MSFT has never been found to be an illelgal monopoly by our court system. If this is not true, let us know. (post 19841)
compared to the historical
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. (post 12961 here, quoted in full)
Well hysterical might be more appropriate than historical, but you got to read it in context. The correct context being the Mind of Reg(TM), where the former quote has some logical relation to the latter. A frightening context indeed.
Cheers, Dan. |
