Replies

Funny, you don't seem concerned about CSC at all.

You're dying on the vine here.

One more time:

I'm critical of CSC when they break the law. You're not critical of MS when they break the law.

In fact, you refuse to even mention the substance of the conviction -- coercion and fraud. You change the subject and pretend it was just 'browser issues' and the like. Which is interesting because that behavior proves you know how bad MS's conviction is, and feel the need to lie about it.

That makes you the 'James Carville' of the MS world. You blindly defend a convicted entity.

Look deep, and consider. Is the only thing that matters to you cash, no matter how ill-gained? Even if that cash was gathered by attacking the free market and keeping choices away from consumers? What limits *do* you have, if any? Would you defend just about any socialists with money? What about Hillary Clinton?

This MS story is indeed ready to stick a fork in it. It's about done -- and MS lost. The only question remaining is what punishments and restrictions will be put on them.

So the only interesting part of the story left now is the blind MS defenders. Like Clintonistas, who were to me the most interesting part of the Clinton story, the question has become, "how can anyone defend such obvious, bold, criminal unethical behavior?"

Like porn queens who have sex with animals for pay, it's fascinating to learn just what some folks are willing to do for money.

I'm critical of CSC when they break the law.

But obviously, you could care less because you're still working for them.

You're not critical of MS when they break the law.

Sherman is outdated. It needs to be changed. I'm sure there are people breaking sodomy laws in the South. Do you wanna haul people in for breaking them? Quite obviously, those laws have outlived their usefulness.

In fact, you refuse to even mention the substance of the conviction -- coercion and fraud.

OEMs and MS received mutual considerations. And considering that no consumer was ever harmed on balance, you pissing on the wrong tree.

You change the subject and pretend it was just 'browser issues' and the like. Which is interesting because that behavior proves you know how bad MS's conviction is, and feel the need to lie about it.

Dominic Harr ... Department of Sodomy Law Enforcement ...

That makes you the 'James Carville' of the MS world. You blindly defend a convicted entity.

And you're the Ken Starr -- the effete, useless, and toothless prosecutor -- of the ABM antitrust wannabe crowd.

Is the only thing that matters to you cash, no matter how ill-gained?

The only thing that matters to me are consumers. And the fact of the matter is that consumers do not choose Linux or Java or any of your crapware alternatives, even absent MS behavior. We never heard one consumer complaint at the trial. It's all ranting competitors.

This MS story is indeed ready to stick a fork in it. It's about done -- and MS lost. The only question remaining is what punishments and restrictions will be put on them.

I'll buy you a beer when it's over so you can cry in it. You're not gonna get what you want, Harr. The breakup is off the table and this judge has made it clear that she thinks that the states' proposals are "odd" and "unusual".

So the only interesting part of the story left now is the blind MS defenders. Like Clintonistas, who were to me the most interesting part of the Clinton story, the question has become, "how can anyone defend such obvious, bold, criminal unethical behavior?"

Because the so-called "obvious, bold, criminal, unethical behavior" is defined by antitrust laws that are obsolete, useless, and not applicable to the modern world.

Like porn queens who have sex with animals for pay, it's fascinating to learn just what some folks are willing to do for money.

Let's keep your personal tastes out of this, okay?