[hchutch]

For me it was simple:

Microsoft was NOT a threat. Heck, there's no evidence of any economic harm to the nation or consumers because it had a monopoly. Yet, the Clinton-Gore-Reno DOJ decided to pursue it, and as a result, did a fair bit of damage to the tech sector.

The government should not be screwing anyone over, as they tried to do to Microsoft. I don't care what agency it is, be it ATF, IRS, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, INS, or the Anti-Trust Division of the DOJ.

This case was more about screwing over a guy who made it without paying out to the DNC or the other groups while his comptetitors did. Furthermore, after his competitors had LOST, they then tried to litigate to turn thier fortunes around. Just like Gore did in Florida.

That was why I was defending Gates to the hilt.

[B Knotts]

You're correct, but keep in mind that much of his success had to do with hiring lawyers to write "creative" contracts, too. :-)

[rdb3]

Many here will affirm that I actually defended MS against this suit. I believe in competition. Using the courts to achieve what you can't competitively doesn't fly with me.

In fact, I believe in the separation of business and state as much as the separation of church and state.

But notice, I defended MS as an entity. But I didn't defend Gates. Never have. Never will.

No mercy.