Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Harold Stevens]

In <435E8C5A.5030105 at sun.removeme.com> Brian Utterback:

[Snip...]

> that the laws have been in place since the late 1800's, the consent
> decree explicitly and in no uncertain terms informed them of their
> violations, and they continued to violate the law even afterward.

It's M$ corporate DNA; they literally couldn't change and survive:

   Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said he wonders whether
   Microsoft's early demands -- which would have compelled manufacturers
   to distribute to consumers only Microsoft's Windows Media Player
   software -- were a genuine mistake or a signal the company intends to
   revert to its hardball tactics.

   "It's somewhat amazing it even happened," said Gavil, who has closely
   followed the Microsoft case. "It's troubling that anyone inside
   Microsoft was still thinking this was a legitimate business strategy."

Well, duh. All they got was a useless wrist-slap from the dickless US DOJ
in 2002, so this is not at all surprising--just bidness as usual for M$.

More:

     http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051020/microsoft_antitrust.html?.v=6

And any M$ apologists are just as much liars and thieves as M$ itself.

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.