DD,
>
>>First of all, and I've stated this before, "Penfield" should have been named "Pinhead".< bg > That aside, however.
>>
>>I'm sure that there are a lot of MS employees cheering and watching to see what the stock does as a response.
>
>
>You bet. As Craig pointed out this doesn't really change the original ruling, only the 'remedy'. Still, as I pointed out to him I think that the bias was so obviously anti-Microsoft & anti-business (ie. pro-socialism, liberal etc) that it couldn't pass the smell test.
>
>I just love it when the anti-business crowd gets a good punch in the nose (figuratively speaking, of course. <g>)

< s > And people call me a "Liberal" around here.:-)

Seriously, I had a lot of problems with the whole process to begin with. Starting at the end and working backwards...

1. "Pinhead" either showed a remarkable amount of ignorance as to how a software company like Microsoft works or the judgement was "for show and not for go". You know, made for the media. In either case, it amounted to despicable behavior for someone in his position.

2. I had, and have, a problem with the monopoly law that was invoked. It's well over a hundred years old, and has little, if any, applicability in this day and age. It undoubtedly needs a good re-writing. As it is now, it's the law, but it's a bad law.< Geez, I'm starting to feel the same feelings I had back in the late 60's < s >>

>As an aside.. It's like Irelend telling the EU to go stuff it and lowering their tax rates even more. <g> Why, what a surprise! their economy is booming and they have a problem finding enough workers, while at the same time the EU member's economies are tanking and. They even wanted Ireland to raise taxes so they could share the misery I suppose... <g>
>
>Duhh.... <g>

LOL!