You are right, I stand corrected. As for your assertion that MS was out of line in its business practices, well, that is a personal observation without any supporting evidence. You may well be right, but in Mr. Borks case we are talking about the law, not business practices, and it has yet to be proved that MS broke the law. They play hardball business but that is not against the law, yeah?
POSTED ON THE DU Wed Jul-20-05 04:20 PM
Original message
"I've changed my mind on gun control. I was wrong.......
we need a well-armed left. It is clear that without the right to keep an bear arms, including assault weapons, liberals would not be safe. The Republicans have made it clear that they don't think we are Americans. They have made it clear that they believe they are automatically entitled to win elections, even when they loose.
We need to protect ourselves. GOP radicals, like Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, can find liberals by simply buying a voter registrations list. See who is listed as a Democrat. The only thing stopping these violent people is the fear that we have weapons to protect ourselves with. Because McVeigh and Rudolph are COWARDS. They like to kill others, but they don't want to be caught and go to jail or get killed in the crossfire. The cowards won't come after us if they believe we can protect ourselves and they might get hurt.
I'm sorry for how this sounds, but it is clear to me that the Republicans have walked away from democracy and have no regard for the lives of their fellow Americans. "
THIS IS TOO FUNNY....A DEM ACTUALLY TRYING TO TELL HIS FELLOW DEMS TO ARM THEMSELVES CAUSE THEY THINK THEY COULD BEAT US IN A FIREFIGHT....ARE THEY KIDDING THEMSELVES....JUST A HINT...WE'VE BEEN ARMING OURSELVES FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW.....LOL
Uh that is not exactly true. In US v Microsoft they were found guilty of violations of the Sherman Anti-trust act. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-findings2.pdf
for instance para 412 states "Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft’s actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft’s core products. Microsoft’s past success in hurting suchcompanies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft’s self-interest."
Yeah it's against the law, they were forced to divest, and the judgment was upheld on appeal.