Re: no Java in XP Windows

["Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Along this line, I heard today on the news the Microsoft intends to ask for
a new hearing regarding the illegal monopoly findings. I believe that they
are interested in delaying any remedy until after they have herded the
market onto XP.

I personally think that a break up would be very much in the interests of
consumers. I know that some people think that this would mean Microsoft
Operating systems would not work as closely with their applications people,
but I think it would lead to a day when they would have to work that closely
with all applications people.

It would also surely make Bill Gates an awful lot richer. I am sure that
each of the subsequent companies would be an independent investment
opportunity.

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


----- Original Message -----
From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows


> Chris,
>
> What you say is true.
>
> I emphasized the point it was an intellectual monopoly because IMHO it can
> only be remedied partially through any court decision.  The best remedy
> being good marketing of a superior product.
>
> Jt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>
> To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 7:41 AM
> Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows
>
>
> > Java and Open Source exist primarily as a reaction against the MicroSoft
> > monopoly (which is an intellectual monopoly, whether or not it's a legal
> > one).
>
> Just to comment, the appeals court held that Microsoft was an _illegal_
> monopoly. In other words, that they had used their monopoly powers
illegally
> to maintain their control on the marketplace.
>
> What the appeals court did was to say that the remedy for this illegal
> monopoly would have to be reconsidered and that they would not enforce the
> order by Judge Jackson that Microsoft be split up. However, the penalty
> consideration was sent back to the lower court and could again order break
> up. They did this because they felt that the Judge's statements about
> Microsoft gave the appearance of a bias against them.
>
> Chris Rehm
> javadisciple@earthlink.net
> If you believe that the best technology wins the
> marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.
>
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> +---
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---