[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My Reply to The article...
I think the article's author is sadly confused about the consent decree
and what the implications are for this lawsuit. Besides, it's not an
especially interesting point of view.
That said, it's perfectly appropriate for ZDNET to run opinion pieces.
It's not reporting, folks. It's *opinion*. Get with it, already.
-Declan
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Chris Pall wrote:
> As I was saying, before my computer (win95) crashed:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/zdnn/0421/308966.html
> This is the biggest piece of fluff reporting I have ever seen. Not
> only is there not a single fact contained in it, but the broad
> generalizations are incomplete and inaccuarate.
>
> The worse part about this article is the fact that you state that
> you know there is an anti-trust issue here. But you chose to ignore it.
> How can you? and Why? Because it makes technological sense? Because
> integration makes technological sense? This is why Microsoft should be
> allowed to integrate a product that clearly was intended to destroy
> Netscape? For those who were here in 94-95, Microsoft wasn't even
> thinking about the internet. If Bil Gates is willing to rewrite a book
> to cover up his lac of a technological fortune telling ability, you can
> be certain, Microsoft is willing to cut off heads to try and protect
> itself (despite the unethical implications)
>
> No sir, you cannot ignore the facts of the case. Even if what Microsoft
> is doing is "user-friendly" or "technologically" appropriate. (which is
> debatable anyway, I'm still stinging from that mini-crash as is Bill
> Gates)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Christopher Pall
> ThinkBiz, DPS, WMU
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>
> x97pall@wmich.edu
> http://members.tripod.com/~ChrisPall/index.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>