Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.

Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?

--
"There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
has done has actually prevented competition, even if their actions
have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch

"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
news:dbsnzm9blc8e$.1gzvvu71p2s17.dlg@40tude.net...
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...580781&rid=-50
>
> Wow!
> That's a real surprise.
>
>
> "The Open Standards 2008 conference scheduled to be held in Sydney this
> week has been cancelled due to a lack of registrations."
>
> Howard Dahdah (Computerworld) 27/10/2008 12:26:00
>
>
> "A lack of interest has forced the cancellation of this year¢s Open
> Standards 2008 conference."
>
> People just don't care about Linux and Open Source/Standards.
> They are too busy using their applications to give a hoot.
>
> Watch Schestowitz and his gang blame it on Microsoft.
>
Well that is kind of hard on the few loyalists who might have attended. I
bet a lot of them lose their deposits on airline and hotel reservations.
Anyone committing ahead of time to get a good price is screwed.

On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
>
> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?

"There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition, even if their
actions have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch

Wow, I missed that one!

--
Windows - Where user apps destroy your OS.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
>>
>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
>
> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
> has done has actually prevented competition,

Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May
1995 that Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to run on
Windows 95, which was due to be released in a couple of months.
Microsoft's senior executives understood that if they could prevent this
version of Navigator from presenting alternatives to the Internet-related
APIs in Windows 95, the technologies branded as Navigator would cease to
present an alternative platform to developers.

We all know what happened to Netscape don't we ?

> even if their actions
> have been found to be anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch
>
> Wow, I missed that one!


Another Wintrolls fantasy version of the Monopolists history.




--
Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

Terry Porter wrote:
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>> chrisv claimed:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone
>>>> and strike up a conversation. You can't do that at a
>>>> virtual conference.
>>>
>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh
>>> Erik?
>>
>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
>
> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
>
> 80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May
> 1995 that Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to
> run on Windows 95, which was due to be released in a couple of
> months. Microsoft's senior executives understood that if they
> could prevent this version of Navigator from presenting
> alternatives to the Internet-related APIs in Windows 95, the
> technologies branded as Navigator would cease to present an
> alternative platform to developers.
>
> We all know what happened to Netscape don't we ?
>
>> even if their actions have been found to be
>> anti-competitive." - Erik Funkenbusch
>>
>> Wow, I missed that one!
>
> Another Wintrolls fantasy version of the Monopolists history.

Another example:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....f48256f4b5f71c

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: High Plains Thumper
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:13:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Wait till you hear this: Guess who is complaining
about monopoly and abuse of market power?

DFS wrote:

> So far I see jeering responses from four cola lusers: TV,
> Gidget, you and Linonut.
>
> But apparently not a single one of you lazy idiots read the
> actual rulings referred to TV and Gidget, because nowhere in
> them is there evidence of a court ruling that MS is a monopoly
> organization.
>
> Findings of fact:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm Conclusions
> of law: http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007...-monopoly.html
> http://www.crn.com/software/26100117
> http://news.cnet.com/South-Korea-fin...3-5985332.html
>
> Keep trying, lamers.

DOJ concluded Microsoft is a monopoly:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not
found to have been illegally acquired, see United States v.
Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to
have been illegally maintained.

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge

--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
>>>
>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
>>
>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything Microsoft
>> has done has actually prevented competition,
>
> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-

Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?

Do you not understand the difference between "actually prevented
competition" and "anti-compatitive behavior"? Hint, one is a fact, the
other is a possibility.

But you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't confuse possibility with
fact.

Netscape was sold in 1998 (3 years after your claims of prevented
competition) for $5 *BILLION* dollars. In 1995 it wasn't even worth $500
Million.

Yet somehow, without being able to compete for 3 years, they somehow
multiplied their net worth by over an order of a magnitude.

But then, terry, I suppose you wouldn't understand that either, given your
lack of logical thinking capacity.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>>>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
>>>>
>>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
>>>
>>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
>>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
>>
>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
>
> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
>



I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
fantasies:-


http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm



--
Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:12 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-10-27, chrisv claimed:
>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing can replace the ability to walk up to someone and strike up a
>>>>>>conversation. You can't do that at a virtual conference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, in your case, walk up to Sweaty and sniff his ass, eh Erik?
>>>>
>>>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
>>>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
>>>
>>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
>>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
>>
>> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
>>
>
>
>
> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
> fantasies:-
>
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.

So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact, Terry.

You're the one living in fantasy land.

And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I even
said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference between
anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.

In article ,
Terry Porter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "There is no evidence, nor has it been proven that anything
> >>> Microsoft has done has actually prevented competition,
> >>
> >> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
> >> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
> >
> > Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
> >
>
>
>
> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
> fantasies:-
>
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

The answer to Erik's question is yes, Terry really is that stupid, as
can be seen by the fact that he's citing documents he doesn't understand.

Hint, Terry: anti-competitive behavior and *actually* *preventing*
*competition* are not the same thing. You keep citing things in support
of the former, which Erik is not disputing, and ignoring the later,
which was Erik's point.

--
--Tim Smith

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
>>>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
>>>
>>> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
>> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
>> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
>> fantasies:-
>>
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>
> I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.
>
> So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
> Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact, Terry.
>
> You're the one living in fantasy land.
>
> And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
> deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I even
> said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference between
> anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.

Who's twisting, Erik?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscap...ns_Corporation

America Online (AOL) on November 24, 1998 announced it would acquire
Netscape Communications in a tax-free stock-swap valued at US$4.2 billion
at the time of the announcement.

I wonder why AOL wanted Netscape, anyway?

After the Microsoft antitrust case found that Microsoft held and had
abused monopoly power, AOL filed suit against it for damages.[16] This
suit was settled in May 2003 when Microsoft paid US $750 million to AOL
and agreed to share some technologies, including granting AOL a license
to use and distribute Internet Explorer royalty-free for seven
years.[17][18] This was considered to be the death knell for Netscape.

On July 15, 2003, Time Warner (formerly AOL Time Warner) disbanded
Netscape.

--
((lambda (foo) (bar foo)) (baz))

Tim Smith wrote:

>anti-competitive behavior and *actually* *preventing*
>*competition* are not the same thing.

Is one better than the other, from a moral standpoint, Timmy?

"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
news:jTCNk.48605$IB6.38809@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:55:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:00 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the 1999 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
>>>>> COLUMBIA finding of fact :-
>>>>
>>>> Geez Terry, are you really that stupid?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest the casual reader check out the following article to determine
>>> whether Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly
>>> position, instead of listening to a well know Wintrolls historical
>>> fantasies:-
>>>
>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>>
>> I suggest, Terry, that you stop twisting facts.
>>
>> So you're seriously going to pretend that it's fantasy that AOL paid $5
>> Billion dollars for Netscape in 1998? Are you serious? It's fact,
>> Terry.
>>
>> You're the one living in fantasy land.
>>
>> And again, you seem incapable of understanding simple english. I did not
>> deny that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I
>> even
>> said as much that they were. My comments were about the difference
>> between
>> anti-competitive behavior and actually blocked competition.
>
> Who's twisting, Erik?
>
You anti-MS folk seem to relish your inability to comprehend the facts.
Consider that the Jackson court's Finding of Fact is nothing without the
companion Finding Of Law that intially called for the breakup of Microsoft
and stringent conditions imposed on the resulting parts. This finding was
totally rejected by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals and
the case was partly reversed and partly remanded back to the district court.
In the remand, Judge Jackson was removed from jurisdiction in the case and
censured for unethical behavior in showing bias towards Microsoft and
obvious pre-judgement before the litigation was completed in that he held
numerous conversations recorded by a reporter writing a book about the case.

In the re-trial, the plaintiffs dropped the only significant charge that
survived the DCCOA action, i.e. the claimed illegal bundling of IE with
Windows. Under the rules defined by the appellate court, the plaintiffs
decided themselves that their case had no merit. What remained were a
collection of violations of the anti-trust laws that the appellate court had
already ruled as being non-causual in regard to monopoly maintenance. The
meaning here is that what Microsoft did was technically illegal, but that
none of these actions actually resulted in any unlawful damage to
competition and so the corrective action was merely to enjoin Microsoft from
any such practice continuing and to establish an oversight committee
comprised of industry experts taken from Microsoft's competition to review
all action in the future. No such violations have been found to have
continued.

All that Erik is saying here is that there never was any illegally blocked
competition. Netscape lost their business due to their own ineptness.