Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (44014)	5/1/2000 1:55:00 AM
From: TTOSBT	Respond to of 74651

Charles if you cannot accept what I said there is no need to confuse the issue with implication scenarios. Simply stated I meant what I said that IMO anyone and everyone has the right to defend themselves when attacked no matter who or how many the attackers may be. I give Bill Gates credit for standing up for himself and continuing to do so in the face of tremendous odds. The easiest thing for him to do right now with his billions would be to settle and go about making more money then he'll ever need in this life. But the facts are clear that he is standing against his adversaries at a time when most would have given in (I'm sure that has a lot to do with them wanting to hit him harder!). That is why I made the statement of him being more than just about making money. Now it is not my intention to have you agree or disagree with this it is just my opinion of his character. TTOSBT

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (44014)	5/1/2000 2:01:00 AM
From: Thunder	Respond to of 74651

Are you implying Gates deliberately lied to the court by saying the removal of IE was impossible? Just goes to show how far MSFT was willing to bend before the ruling, for a settlement. Besides that, who's to say TPJ wasn't in the middle of one of his much publicized "naps" during that part of the trial. <g> Gary

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (44014)	5/1/2000 2:36:00 AM
From: adamnelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

It was impossible from the viewpoints of business sense, technology integration issues, customer requirements, and whatever. The defendant simply provided a honest answer to a question which was hypothesized with a predictive nature. Unless you are implying that you know the Law better than any of the lawyers involved, I'd suggest that you save your time trying to take Gates' statements out of context. They would have done a better job 8-) If all Gates wants is to make money, he would have retired by now. And, hopefully you would have rather spent more time praising how SUNW would rule the world? You would probably be liking the ideas of paying 10 times more for a Solaris license? Yet you don't even get a Window! IMHO

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (44014)	5/1/2000 10:54:00 AM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Charles, I don't believe that Gates lied. The fact is that removing IE the way it is integrated right now is impossible. It can be disabled as the browser (it can be done by anybody today when they use Netscape), however, it cannot be completely removed since some of the DLLs contained in IE are used by the Operating System. Now, just because it can't be removed today, doesn't mean that it couldn't be removed tomorrow. Maybe Microsoft was willing to take the development and testing hit to put behind a lawsuit. Surely, you can agree with that.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (44014)	5/1/2000 3:40:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 74651

Are you implying Gates deliberately lied to the court by saying the removal of IE was impossible? I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is. One could say that it "is" impossible to remove IE from Windows and be totally correct because the OS uses functionality that is part of IE's modules. Removing these modules results in a poorly- or non-functioning OS. Replacing these modules with other modules (not yet written) that provided these functions alone may allow the removal of IE. If the redefinition of "is" is OK for the person ultimately in charge of the Department of Justice then why wouldn't it be OK for someone that department is investigating?