On Thursday 06 September 2001 16:46, Curtis Rey wrote: | Here here, I agree totally. Breaking up M$ is something that the | Redmondians have been prepared for since the notion of "breakup" | was first mentioned sometime ago - Don't you thing they've spent a | considerable amount of time and energy on a viable contingency? | The DOJ, hopefully, understands at least a little about what's | going on. The issues as I see it is the tactics M$ uses to lock | out competition and re-invent standards that only utlilizes M$ | products. If the DOJ gets it on this level then M$ may not be very | comfortable at the "settlement" talks. Remember, the issues is to | leash M$ not kill them (though I for one wouldn't shed a tear if M$ | went the way of the Dodo - which I never thought they would. | Breaking up M$ may even be the worst of the alternatives. The real | hurts is to open code, access to API's, and the nature of control | that M$ uses in their business contracts with their partners, | associates, and clients. entirely right -- address the things that caused judge sporking to refuse to sign the consent decree that reno's justice department cooked up with microsoft in 1994, which allowed things to get this far. a pretty basic document in all of this is here: http://torrent.sj.ca.us/Commentary/sporkin_order.html justice and microsoft appealed and sporkin was overturned, and it was business as usual for microsoft. justice's sudden loss of interest coincided with a meeting between bill gates and bill clinton at the white house in early 1995. -- dep one day, you'll wish it was now. your wish has been granted. don't waste it.