>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 The previous prosecuting team has been replaced by somewhat inept lawyers lacking experience with high powered defense teams that Microsoft fields.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,

I had a couple of last thoughts on the GUI thing. As I recall, Apple's "problem" was with Win95's use of the desktop metaphor. Again, this is more than 10 years (the Mac came out in January of 1984) after the fact. Having used the original Mac, and comparing it to the Win95 implementation, the single similarity seems to be simply the desktop.

If we look at Fox's history, and compare FoxBASE to dBASE III, couldn't it be said that Fox "stole" the interface from dBASE?

I just think that picking on something like this isn't relevant. Fox won (at least here at Shaw) because it was a better product. How one interacted with it wasn't the reason. What it did and how much it cost was.

I also took the opportunity to scan the book "Fire in the Valley". There's a brief section on the development of Lisa and the Mac, and while Microsoft is mentioned elsewhere's in the book, there's no reference to any involvement with the development of the original Lisa/Mac OS.

I think that it's a very tricky thing, when dealing with software companies, to determine if the underlying reasons for the existence of the anti-trust laws have been violated, and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. Further, I fail to see how the original remedy (namely breaking up Microsoft) would do anything positive for the consumer. OTOH, I can easily see how it would result in the higher cost of software, which cannot be said to be positive.

I don't think that simply the inclusion of the browser with the operating system should be an issue. After all, Microsoft includes a word processor (WordPad) and most bundled systems these days come with MS Works and Word, and no one seems to have a problem with that. The question that needs to be resolved is did they integrate the browser into the OS in such a way as to impede competition?

I got a first hand "wake-up call" as to what the effects of the break up a monopoly can mean to the consumer. Last month, my wife and I drove up to the Chicago area to visit the grand-kids and some friends. My two sons (18 and 22 stayed at home). While we were up there (about 10 days), we made 15-20 calls to the house, using our BellSouth credit card to charge the calls to our home number. The longest (by far) of these calls was 17 minutes. It added $140-150 to our monthly bill. The 17 minute call was over $25. Foolishly, we presumed that whatever the normal charges for a long distance call were would be billed to our home number. We now know better and won't repeat that mistake again.
>
>>
>>< 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.
>
It was written from the ground up. Certainly, some advantage was gained by having access to the original code. Further, some former Sybase employees were part of the team. Nevertheless, it had to be re-done in many aspects since it was written explicitly for WinNT, and not a number of platforms.

The motivating factor was the rather disappointing performance that Sybase was showing in a 32 bit OS.

>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.

Hey, I'm no different from anyone else. I certainly make more than my share of "stupid" mistakes. I just don't make them public. When I post something like that, it means that I'm fresh out of ideas as to the source of the problem.:-)

I appreciate the kind words, Jerry, but I'm just another "grunt" out here trying to make it through. I had a professor once who said that this (Computer Science) is the most difficult of the exact sciences. Programming may not completely qualify as Computer Science, but, for my money, it's awful close.

>Take care.

You too.