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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (19868)	6/2/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Ok, wasn't HP "Open Look", it was "New Wave", equally forgotten. Maybe people really used Windows 2.03, beats me. A brief citation: The lawsuit was actually filed in 1988 based on Windows version 2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's New Wave. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 709 F. Supp. 925, 926 (N.D. Cal. 1989). However, it was later amended to include the even more popular 3.x versions of Windows. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 799 F. Supp. 1006, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1992). (from urich.edu What I got out of a brief look at this is that Microsoft won largely based on some "secret agreement" Bill signed with Apple circa 1985, as a quid pro quo for developing Mac apps. Somehow, I doubt muchly that Bill signed any secret agreements with the antitrust division that will help him out in his current battle. But who knows. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (19868)	6/2/1998 9:46:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

You are correct that I said Supreme Court where I meant to say Federal Court. Sorry. I had Supreme Court on the brain from news read earlier. It doesn't change my comments on the topic, however. I'm not sure what all the sarcasm and insults were intended to accomplish.