>>The biggest damage he did by releasing such a poor machine as Lisa was to encourage a lot of retailers, like myself, to look at other platforms. Specifically the IBM PC, when it came out. It took only seconds to make the decision to drop Apple PCs and go to IBM PCs and clones.
>
>OK, but how did the "theft" of "Apple's GUI design" negatively impact Apple? You can't say that it did prior to Win 3.x (which was 5-7 years later). Win 3.x is certainly arguable. And certainly, with Win95 (which was more than 10 years later than the Mac) it's difficult to implicate Microsoft as a reason for Apple's problems.
>
>Yes, they did settle, but was the settlement a matter of expediancy or because of guilt? You can argue either point.
>
>>
>>>It should also be pointed out that one of the "angels" in the entire Apple saga is Microsoft. Apple might not be in business to-day if not for the partership that Jobs and Gates struck a couple of years ago.
>>
>>That's a euphamistic to look at the situation. Others might think of it as a cheap way to manufacture 'competition' at a time when the DOJ was making the point that there was no competition. I guess we agree to disagree.
>
>
>Yes, we do. My point, however, is that the market, not the government has made the choice. Maybe the point about "manufacturing competition" is valid.
>
>There is one point that I have a severe problem with. The mantra of those who refer to themselves as "conservative" has and is that they want less government intervention. OK, we have and instance were the government is stepping in. Is this in the best interest of the consumer? Probably not. Microsoft vs. the DOJ was instigated by parties, who, like Apple, lost in the marketplace and sought court intervention to do what they could not. Yet, who leads the attack against Microsoft? The same "less government" conservatives. It's hypocrisy.

It is always in the best interests of the consumer law enforcement to enforce anti-trust laws, unless you think company wages, company stores, company homes, company police, etc., are a good thing. (Remember the battle of Matwan?)
It is interersting that you think that those testifying against Microsoft are sore loosers. Have you ever asked yourself how or why they "lost"? Did you investigated the circumstances? The court evidence? The tampering with court evidence? Dr Dos 4.0 was the first red flag warning of illegal or unethical behavior, but it was the first that produced absolute proof. Not only was there smoke, Dr. Dobbs Journal showed us the fire. We have seen both smoke and fire many times since then. It is impossible to compete against a company that controls the OS your app runs under if that company decides to fold their copy of your app into the OS. The last ten years is littered with the bones of those 'losers'. AOL is presently enjoying a market share similar to what Netscape had. Do you really believe that after Microsoft folds their 'free' version of instant messaging into the kernel people will bother to load and pay for AOL's version? If so, explain how Netscape could not survive, even though their web browser was much better than Internet Explorer first offering. And now we have the fiasco with Compaq's plans to put AOL's icons on their XP desktop copies being thwarted by MS changing the rules of the game.

The amazing thing was the DOJ's first inept attempt to get Microsoft and Gates to play fair. The issue could have been settled then, before more damage was done. They trusted Gates to honor the legal arbitrations he signed, and his 'gentlemans agreement', but he had other things in mind. The DOJ was forced to re-investigate and renew the prosecution. It was a Clinton DOJ, not a conservative one. The lead prosecutor was the very famous lawyer who represent Al Gore in the election battles before the Florida and US supreme courts. So, I don't understand your problem with 'conservatives' in this matter. If anything, the Bush may be impeding the DOJ's efforts. The previous prosecuting team has been replaced by somewhat inept lawyers lacking experience with high powered defense teams that Microsoft fields. A conservative President may save your beloved company's bacon. Personally, I've wondered why they didn't use RICO.

Besides, supporting the DOJ in their enforcement of the laws that are on the books by prosecuting violators is not asking for government 'intervention' or 'stepping in', it is asking government personnel to do the job they were elected or hired to do, something both conservatives, liberals, and libertarians like myself agree on. One purpose for laws is to protect the citizen from the 800 lb gorrilla, physical or corporate. Actually, a larger number of those 'leading the attack' (I would describe it as exploiting criminal acts of others for their own political advantage) are leftists, operating in accord with anti-capitalist political beliefs. Ralph Nader comes to mind. Even Balmer accused Linux enthusiasts of being communists and, no doubt, some are. Penquinistas cover the same political spectrum as Microsofties. In fact, it is interesting to note that the largest number of Kylix enthusiasts appear to be developers coming from WinXX backgrounds who are staying active on both platforms.


>
>< Jerry said that Microsoft bought SQL Server from Sybase. I said that MS developed SQL Server 6.0. >
>
>>I think I said that, in fewer words. :)
>
>No, you didn't.

I guess that since the source is propriatary we won't know if SQL Server 6.0 was a scratch development that didn't spring from or benefit from Sybase's SQL, but MS's history of 'innovation' is buy (or steal - remember the Go corp, or stacker, etc...?) and modify.

Nice discussion, George. BTW, it's nice to know you are mortal after all. :) That foxtool problem was the first I recall you having in a loooong time. Usually, I think to myself, "I am not worthy" when I read your articles in VFUG. But, except for VFP work, I spend most of my time on Linux these days.
Take care.