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 : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (21339)	6/28/2001 2:38:32 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Well, I already have it, thanks. All is indeed well as far as that goes. Just as good is that I am long gone from COMS and PALM too. With regard to MSFT, whether or not their case is won or lost, won't shake my opinion of whether what they did was right or not. Neither does OJ's acquittal change my opinion of his guilt or innocence. Gloat away. I'm indifferent at this point.

To: Scrapps who wrote (21339)	6/28/2001 3:30:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22053

I think they agreed that MSFT was guilty of a broad degree of charges; they just didn't agree with the way Penfield handled himself. thestandard.com <snip> The appeals court upheld Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s ruling that Microsoft was guilty on most charges of illegally maintaining a monopoly in operating systems. The appeals court also upheld Jackson’s specific ruling that it was illegal for the company to form restrictive licensing agreements of the kind it formed with PC makers such as Dell and Gateway. It agreed with the ruling that Microsoft had formed illegally exclusionary deals with Internet service providers such as America Online and with Internet content providers. In addition, the appeals court upheld Judge Jackson’s finding that the deal Microsoft made with Apple to get that company to use the Internet Explorer browser was illegal. The appeals court likewise agreed with Judge Jackson that Microsoft violated the law when it attempted to undermine the Java programming language - for example when it threatened Intel for working on a cross-platform Java virtual machine. The appeals court also upheld Judge Jackson's ruling that it was illegal for Microsoft to mix software code of Windows and its browser in one file and exclude the browser from its add/remove utility in Windows. </snip>