|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Think yo have a few things mixed here:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Intellectual Property of one's own developped software
belongs to originator, thus is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> at liberty to with it whatever he pleases.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Free distribution rights of that develloped property belong
to the rightfull owner of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> that (intullectual) property</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Free enterprise</FONT><FONT size=2> rights of one's own
develloped software solely is in its owners hand </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Exchanges duty to suspend a company's listing(s),
when a party or several parties</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> (US Government or Sate Governments combined)
announce a raid, eg and </FONT><FONT size=2>while the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> raid's Take Over bid and process is still
in progress. Unequal distributed information</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> and stocks-sensitive information can damage owners and
future owners. Compensation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> trials will have be started, with as the worsest
results dismantelling of that Exchange</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> that is at fault, and government (tax) funds to have to
fork out these compensations, as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> the eledgible parties most likely will/went
bankrupt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>-Shareholders rights to be compensated when a
company is lawfully being raided/taken over,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2> these rights are secured
by/in </FONT></FONT><FONT size=2>countries laws (and enforced on the
Exchanges) and any losses</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> due to this effect will </FONT><FONT size=2>have
to be compensated (naturally with tax-payers funds)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Consumer rights and experiences that are not taken into
considderation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Governmental duties and obligations to govern and not to
dictate rules and be carefull</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> in their actions, since they pocess the
largests amounts of </FONT><FONT size=2>monopolies everywhere in the
society,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> including </FONT><FONT size=2>in the
jurispedential dep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Covered communism if a state or its representatives are
indulging in on free enterprise, else</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> confiscates or otherwise directly or indirectly by
ruling put their will on its enhabitants, its citicens</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> or </FONT><FONT
size=2>its companies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Incompetent. The people involved not to be daily computer
users.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Most Judges and high Gov employees </FONT><FONT
size=2>don't even know what a 'mouse' is, let alone</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> what you can use it for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Hardware co's (or any co for that matter), to look into their
own organisation and its own structures</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> and own employees, if they are not capable to make
their business a succesfull one. It is never</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> the fault of a competitor, eg it is their own strategy
that doesn't/have failed to work. Any co is also</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> at liberty to sack </FONT><FONT size=2>the
wrongdoers </FONT><FONT size=2>and employ the geniuses to start being
succesfull too. So these</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> unsuccesfull co's should not start
crying </FONT><FONT size=2>at other -indeed- succesfull co's,
if what their executatives</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> only goal is, is to fill their own pockets. worst you as
a computer user yourselves can do is to feel</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> sorry for these -raiding your pockets-
unsuccesfull co's. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss the
".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>note the new address
change. Also for my Homepage<BR><A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title=jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Joseph
Ehardt</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> vrijdag 14 januari 2000 19:32</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You are probably right. Why should we take action against
abusive monopolies? Surely Compaq had no right to decide which browser it
wanted to use for its internal corporate information network. Why don't
abusive monopolies have the right to transfer as much capital into their
pockets from that of others? Maybe we should reward Microsoft for being so
abusive with a bonus. After all, it would be pointless for it to engage in
such practices once it had acquired all capital.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What action to take with Microsoft will require the wisdom
of Solomon. Bill Gates may be signaling that, rather than a breakup into OS
and applications, what might be acceptable is a breakup into operational and
research (where Gates himself would take over the equivalent of Bell Labs AKA
Lucent and Ballmer running the rest). How that would satisfy the Department of
Justice eludes me, but then Gates can't figure what the fuss is all about
to begin with.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>lissen@xxxxxxx <<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Friday, January 14, 2000 10:02 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: to be or not to
be<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Without going into a long discussion, last year one
of the rumors floating<BR>around was to separate Microsoft into 2 companies.
One to develop and sell<BR>the operating system(s), the second to develop
and sell all the other<BR>Microsoft software.<BR><BR>About a hundred years
ago, the US government "broke" up the Standard Oil<BR>Trust into several
different companies, seven I think. Does anyone believe<BR>that this
affected Rockefeller's dominance of the oil industry or reduced<BR>his
income in anyway?<BR><BR>Lionel Issen<BR><A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR>----- Original
Message -----<BR>From: "A.J. Maas" <<A
href="mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx";>anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>To:
"Metastock-List" <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>Sent:
Thursday, January 13, 2000 4:43 PM<BR>Subject: to be or not to
be<BR><BR><BR>> Time to call for a worldwide import ban on US goods + US
products<BR>!!!!!!!!<BR>><BR>> (If the below joke from the very
industry dominating US-government and<BR>> its marionettes gets through.
First we had the CIAinfiltrating, now<BR>> the Gov themselves chainsawing
the legs off of a table).<BR>><BR>> Regards,<BR>> Ton Maas<BR>>
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>> note
the new address change. Also for my Homepage<BR>> <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A><BR>><BR>>
=========================================================<BR>><BR>>
Today's WinInfo<BR>> Report: U.S. government seeks to break
up Microsoft!<BR>><BR>><BR>> Report: U.S. government seeks to break
up Microsoft!<BR>><BR>> According to a report Wednesday in USA Today,
the United States<BR>government<BR>> and 19 U.S. states will seek to
break up Microsoft Corporation into two<BR>> smaller companies should it
win its antitrust case against the software<BR>> giant. And such a
victory is virtually guaranteed unless Microsoft<BR>reaches a<BR>>
settlement, given the harsh language of the findings of fact, which
were<BR>> issued last November. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is
overseeing<BR>the<BR>> case, will deliver his conclusions of law in
February.<BR>><BR>> The U.S. government and various states had been at
odds regarding the<BR>> eventual punishment of Microsoft ever since they
combined forces to bring<BR>> the monopolist to justice. However,
according to the USA Today report, a<BR>> consensus has finally been
reached and the current plan is to split<BR>> Microsoft into two
companies, one that sells its Windows operating system<BR>> and one that
would sell applications software. Windows is installed on<BR>well<BR>>
over 90% of all personal computers sold and in operation
today.<BR>><BR>> Though Microsoft says it is open to a settlement, the
company isn't<BR>> interested in being split up.<BR>><BR>> "[A
breakup] would do great harm to the industry," said Microsoft<BR>>
spokesperson Mike Murray.<BR>><BR>> Late Wednesday, the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly commented<BR>on<BR>> the USA Today
story, which it described as "inaccurate in several<BR>respects."<BR>>
USA Today then announced that it stands by the story, however.
Microsoft<BR>> shares fell almost 4 to 105 13/16 as rumors swirled about
breakups and<BR>> settlement talks; Microsoft lawyers also met today in
Chicago with the<BR>> mediator in its antitrust case.<BR>><BR>>
Oddly enough, AOL's purchase of Time Warner this week makes
Microsoft's<BR>> position in its antitrust trial more positive: Microsoft
argued that its<BR>> domination of the computer industry was under
constant attack and that it<BR>> could fall by the wayside at any time
should its competitors come<BR>together<BR>> in a convincing way. With
the AOL/Time Warner deal, that may have just<BR>>
happened.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 17 09:30:48 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24881
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:34:44 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31193
for metastock-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:10:47 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31190
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:10:44 -0700
Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.198.79])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA02223
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:21:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.198.71])
by darius.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(98/12/15 5.12))
id MAA00004; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:06:24 -0500 (EST)
[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Received: from jehardt (ts026d44.sjc-ca.concentric.net [206.173.232.56])
by newman.concentric.net (8.9.1a)
id MAA18300; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:06:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <004701bf5f7b$7857cf60$38e8adce@xxxxxxx>
From: "Joseph Ehardt" <jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: to be or not to be
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:10:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF5F38.69298800"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I don't think I have anything mixed up. More likely is that I
have read the publicly distributed Findings of Fact in DOJ vs Microsoft and am
more familiar with American law.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From your comments, which are pretty far ranging, I think
you might not understand what Microsoft did with respect to Compaq. It also did
similar things with other companies. But let me return to Compaq, because it
helps to understand the facts as revealed by Microsoft's own internal documents
as made public in the trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Question: What right does Microsoft have to demand that Compaq
not use Netscape at its personal browser? Compaq was installing Internet
Explorer on systems sold to customers, which should have made Microsoft content,
but it had adopted the internal company standard of using Netscape which
predated IE. Microsoft demanded that this end.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Question: Switching the context, if you think that Microsoft
has this right and you happen to not use Internet Explorer, do you believe that
Microsoft has the right to force you to switch to Internet Explorer, and if you
refuse, that it has the right to strip Windows off your personal computer and
electronically monitor your system to insure that you never install Windows on
your system?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The issue is not whether Microsoft has the right to distribute
and sell its products, nor is it that Microsoft owns the rights to these
products. No one has argued that it does not. The issue that has been
adjudicated, re-stated in different terms, is whether Microsoft had the right to
use its monopoly power to force people to buy its product when they do not wish
to do so. Microsoft was interfering with the right of individuals and companies
to freely choose other products.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Another example: IBM has an office application suite of its
own (Lotus) that it put on computers that it builds. Do you think that Microsoft
has the right to force IBM to replace its own Lotus software with that of
Microsoft Office?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are more examples that were proven during the course of
the trial, and they are all contained in the Findings of Fact document.
Personally, I want my right protected to freely choose products and services as
guaranteed by the law. I refuse the assertion that any company has the
right to coerce me to buy its products.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Maybe if your information sources were not from press
accounts, then you might have a more circumspect understanding of Microsoft's
actions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>A.J. Maas <<A
href="mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx";>anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Saturday, January 15, 2000 03:32 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: to be or not to
be<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Think yo have a few things mixed here:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Intellectual Property of one's own developped software
belongs to originator, thus is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> at liberty to with it whatever he
pleases.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Free distribution rights of that develloped property belong
to the rightfull owner of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> that (intullectual) property</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Free enterprise</FONT><FONT size=2> rights of one's
own develloped software solely is in its owners hand </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Exchanges duty to suspend a company's listing(s),
when a party or several parties</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> (US Government or Sate Governments combined)
announce a raid, eg and </FONT><FONT size=2>while the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> raid's Take Over bid and process is still
in progress. Unequal distributed information</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> and stocks-sensitive information can damage owners
and future owners. Compensation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> trials will have be started, with as the worsest
results dismantelling of that Exchange</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> that is at fault, and government (tax) funds to have
to fork out these compensations, as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> the eledgible parties most likely will/went
bankrupt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>-Shareholders rights to be compensated when a
company is lawfully being raided/taken over,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2> these rights are secured
by/in </FONT></FONT><FONT size=2>countries laws (and enforced on the
Exchanges) and any losses</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> due to this effect will </FONT><FONT size=2>have
to be compensated (naturally with tax-payers funds)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Consumer rights and experiences that are not taken
into considderation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Governmental duties and obligations to govern and not to
dictate rules and be carefull</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> in their actions, since they pocess the
largests amounts of </FONT><FONT size=2>monopolies everywhere in the
society,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> including </FONT><FONT size=2>in the
jurispedential dep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Covered communism if a state or its representatives are
indulging in on free enterprise, else</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> confiscates or otherwise directly or indirectly by
ruling put their will on its enhabitants, its citicens</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> or </FONT><FONT
size=2>its companies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Incompetent. The people involved not to be daily computer
users.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Most Judges and high Gov employees </FONT><FONT
size=2>don't even know what a 'mouse' is, let alone</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> what you can use it for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>-Hardware co's (or any co for that matter), to look into
their own organisation and its own structures</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> and own employees, if they are not capable to
make their business a succesfull one. It is never</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> the fault of a competitor, eg it is their own strategy
that doesn't/have failed to work. Any co is also</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> at liberty to sack </FONT><FONT size=2>the
wrongdoers </FONT><FONT size=2>and employ the geniuses to start being
succesfull too. So these</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> unsuccesfull co's should not start
crying </FONT><FONT size=2>at other -indeed- succesfull co's,
if what their executatives</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> only goal is, is to fill their own pockets. worst you
as a computer user yourselves can do is to feel</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> sorry for these -raiding your pockets-
unsuccesfull co's. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>note the new
address change. Also for my Homepage<BR><A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title=jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Joseph
Ehardt</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> vrijdag 14 januari 2000
19:32</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You are probably right. Why should we take action against
abusive monopolies? Surely Compaq had no right to decide which browser it
wanted to use for its internal corporate information network. Why don't
abusive monopolies have the right to transfer as much capital into their
pockets from that of others? Maybe we should reward Microsoft for being so
abusive with a bonus. After all, it would be pointless for it to engage in
such practices once it had acquired all capital.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What action to take with Microsoft will require the wisdom
of Solomon. Bill Gates may be signaling that, rather than a breakup into OS
and applications, what might be acceptable is a breakup into operational and
research (where Gates himself would take over the equivalent of Bell Labs
AKA Lucent and Ballmer running the rest). How that would satisfy the
Department of Justice eludes me, but then Gates can't figure what the
fuss is all about to begin with.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>lissen@xxxxxxx <<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Friday, January 14, 2000 10:02 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: to be or not
to be<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Without going into a long discussion, last year
one of the rumors floating<BR>around was to separate Microsoft into 2
companies. One to develop and sell<BR>the operating system(s), the second
to develop and sell all the other<BR>Microsoft software.<BR><BR>About a
hundred years ago, the US government "broke" up the Standard Oil<BR>Trust
into several different companies, seven I think. Does anyone
believe<BR>that this affected Rockefeller's dominance of the oil industry
or reduced<BR>his income in anyway?<BR><BR>Lionel Issen<BR><A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 17 09:32:38 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01557
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:12:59 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA02058
for metastock-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:28:25 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA02055
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:28:22 -0700
Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com (sendmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [169.207.1.78])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02452
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:39:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from Craig (lafra-2-131.mdm.mdx.execpc.com [169.207.194.197])
by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id RAA06111
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:24:03 -0600
Message-ID: <018201bf5faf$b36f6200$c2d40a18@xxxxx>
From: "Craig Monroe" <cmonroe@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3.0.3.32.19990706083553.007411c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: DiNapoli indicators for MetaStock
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:11:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
I'm in the midst of reading DiNapoli's Trading with DiNapoli Levels which I
bought from a private party and am learning a lot (or seeing the same info
presented differently - but it's meaningful to me nonetheless). I've taken a
couple of profitable daytrades this week off his MACD and Stochastic method
of looking at data and I love how his (?) displaced 3,3 moving average is
effective in keeping you in "runaway" stocks. He's really fussy about how
indicators (specifically stochastics) are encoded. I'm wondering whether
anyone who bought the book from him has the MetaStock formulas. Private
email would be great. Thanks for any help with this.
Craig Monroe
cmonroe@xxxxxxxxxx
|