>I'm no lawyer, but I think the strongest argument one could make is that Microsoft appears to have pursued a systematic pattern of deceptive pseudo-promotion of VFP aimed at destroying all significant competition in the mid-range DBMS marketplace. It could also be argued that this behavior has done substantial, quantifiable financial harm to Microsoft's customers who have been deceived over the years by these practices. But I would expect that the issue of punitive damages, broader anti-trust ramifications, and negative PR value might weigh more heavily in the outcome of any such lawsuit.
>


In this rambling, while you have come to a series of conclusions, there is not a single valid legal argument to be found...

Seriously, you are leading with 'Microsoft appears to have pursued a systematic pattern of deceptive psuedo-promotion of VFP...'????

Exactly where as MS deceived you? Seems to me that MS has been pretty clear about VFP's role @ MS. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that Fox IS NOT the strategic focus of the company. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that MS will not be promoted beyond the current customer base. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that the landscape Fox is not likely to change. Fact, MS has said that it will continue to support and invest in Fox. It just so happens they are not doing it at a level you like. News flash, MS is not under any obligation, legally, morally, ethically, or otherwise to promote VFP at a level that would fit with your comfort level.


Punitive damages??? Broader anti-trust ramifications???? You must be kidding.

FYI, you have a remedy...its called dbase2000. If you think the grass is greener over there, I suggest you check it out...< bg >...

Mike... it is time to move on.... You don't have a leg to stand on here....