Firefox Founders: "We want to make money..." 10181

any that I dont think that I am wromgat all, Rick! Certainly there are expenses at the front end of any business setup. If you open a pizza restaurant, you have to pay the rent in advance and buy an oven and a cash register and all the other things that you are going to be selling. Is that a loss? No.

For a teacher, you have a poor sense of context and reading comprehension, Rick. You called them losses.

I try to get there once a year. I like the Bellagio the best. What's your favorite?

We go to Biloxi once or twice, too, the Beau Rivage is like a miniature Bellagio. I don't need any loans, though.

on No they didn't. Where do you get your knowledge? You should go to primary sources rather than COLA for your info, Rick. You are getting a biased view.

Cannot check something that doesn't exist, Rick. But you say it was worthless and so did a lot of people in that era. Microsoft made it better over time, though, and today it is the premier browser in use with by 80% to 90% of the people who use them. A remarkable achievement, IMO.

However, if the Spyglbutt contribution was so substandard as was claimed, however can you say that they were "screwed over"? That would imply that they had some merit and you plainly do not think so. Microsoft did pay them some $8M for their code contributions, though. That was a lot of money for such a poor job, don't you agree?

Not true in any precise sense, Rick. They were found to have done things that were considered violations of the anbreastrust laws when performed by a company holding monopoly power in the same market. And they were found to currently have monopoly power in the "Intel compatible desktop computer operating system software" market, so these activities were not permitted. However, there was no determination that the practices were actually performed at a point in time that Microsoft had the monopoly. Thus they were enjoined not to do anything like that in the future, but past practices were only used as evidence that such things were going on.

For example, take the IBM testimony. At the time that Microsoft was trying to get IBM to promote Windows, IBM was still selling OS-2 and the two products were comparably priced and available to PC buyers. There was no Windows monopoly at that time, certainly, and IBM had full access to OS-2. IBM wanted to offer Windows, however, because it was more popular with PC buyers and so IBM could sell more PCs with Windows than with their own product. The evidence was that Microsoft paid fees to OEMs to deal exclusively, but the offer to IBM was not an anbreastrust violation at that point in time. No penalties were ever buttessed, as would be the case if there was a provable law violation. I think that the truth is obvious, but it is you who are blind to it.