|
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><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks for correctly outlaying all the Gov departments
involvements in this trial (no not a joke, but outlayed you have</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>exactly placed the finger at the right point, eg there where
it </FONT><FONT size=2>is everything that is 'under US Governmental control
only', eg</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>not some world trade tribunal, eg Microsoft after all
is multinational, and so is Compaq, IBM, Oracle, AOL
(nowadays,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>but still </FONT><FONT size=2>doesn't know how to make profits
I believe), eg an utherly biased disturbed/disrupted outcome from the
WCM-mob</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>is then naturally </FONT><FONT size=2>only to follow,
</FONT><FONT size=2>eg and 9 States+USGov that's 10 gang-banging.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What are these States uberhaupt doing "businessing", they are
</FONT><FONT size=2>suppose to take care of file-free roads, un-armed
populations,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>solve crimes versus humanity, give social welfare, keep
</FONT><FONT size=2>hospitals and other public services running, provide the
by the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>citicens needed infrastructural works, but what the heck
</FONT><FONT size=2>are they doing "businessing"? That is not their
TASK(see above).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What the heck are they going to spent, the from honoust
citicens received(but now stolen) taxes, on expensive lawyers for?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And for whom? </FONT><FONT size=2>Have the States
now become the second garniture lawyers for (only) some of it
enterprises?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Is that included in their TASK or DUTY?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Can anyone or co from now on having a corperate dispute
call on the State to defend him/herself in court vs any other
company?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That than </FONT><FONT size=2>can become very funny, with
endless, millions,trillions of support requests to follow.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If you help one you have to help the other too!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"You don't want to pay the bill? I have here </FONT><FONT
size=2>a courtorder for you, and you cannot be represented by the State, because
it is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>already doing my defence", That'll be
the day!! I</FONT><FONT size=2>s that too what the "new economy" is all
about.....................!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>Doesn't it make anyone wonder or awake of a large
</FONT><FONT size=2>conspiracy in this perhaps? (The witch got burned, burn the
Witch !!!!).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Not even a little (10) one? It used to be called
mafia(1920/30's). Tsjee, the US Gov learns fast. Though, in the 90's,
it's</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>called the white colored mob (slightly different format
version), eg the WCMs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Since it is also thus out of the hands of any
reliable independent ruling, suggest that after the highly based on
(selection year!)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>heavy sentimental </FONT><FONT size=2>grounds the </FONT><FONT
size=2>Microsoft vs Netscape&other gangb'ers </FONT><FONT size=2>hearings
rulings, the following businesses will be examended,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>then broken up into many </FONT><FONT size=2>more companies,
eg but best should be straight out be limited(ceased) to exist. So, too that
they cannot</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>serve </FONT><FONT size=2>the customer anymore what he wants
(everyone wants the Internet Explorer IN THE OS, perhaps apart from some freaks
always</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>wanting </FONT><FONT size=2>something different, its is their
day, they can go shop elswhere, especially on the internet free&easy!!!!, an
Internet that is free</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>accessable and free supported </FONT><FONT size=2>in
Public Libraries and in Town Halls, TOTALY FREE IN CHOICE, and it will not harm
these die hards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>people to use </FONT><FONT size=2>public domain, now will
it?), yes also elswhere in this world </FONT><FONT size=2>besides the high oh
mighty '</FONT><FONT size=2>peddistalled' US (but where</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>'shamed' should </FONT><FONT size=2>be more</FONT><FONT
size=2> in its place):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>BOEING - World Aircraft monopoly</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
Any one knows that if you want to sell something, an airplane perhaps, that
though it is strictly forbidden, but</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
also a herited localised custom </FONT><FONT size=2>in many of the
Italian/Asian/African/Middle+LatinAmerican countries, to first
bribe</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
your </FONT><FONT size=2>customers(or their reps) with enourmous amounts of
U$, hooker-parties etc.(I'm sure Dutch Madam Xavierra</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
Hollander is capable to give full details, that is if she will not be
killed by other US Gov Dep first, CIA)</FONT><FONT size=2>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
Fokker Aircraft, a recently passed away airco, (remember
Fellowships+Friendships models, still many used</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
by the Flying Docters Squad) a co that was monitored by the Dutch
State, was one of the many victums</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
of these highly illiegal actions by US's Boeing, it ended up filing for
bankruptcy, after Daimler for only a while,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
have held it alive </FONT><FONT size=2>on a paperstraw thin
bloodline.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Any US Co. - that are doing business with/in the aformentioned
countries, since all are continiously treaspassing the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
recently newly addressed ruling: companies are treashpassing precious made
Gov. laws. Thus break them up !!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>INTEL - Must be bribing its way into
anyone. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>BUD - Bribing the
Mexicans</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>NAM -We all remeber it
deeply and want to cover for this 20th century capitol blunder by that same
greatfull very justifiable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
high-on-justice-if-it's-suites-themselves US Gov+its corruptive
Sates, </FONT><FONT size=2>eg that very large, perhaps the
largest</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
-not as yet split up- </FONT><FONT
size=2>Monopoly Institute</FONT><FONT size=2>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
Did the rest of the World split up the USA for their ir-responsibility
behaviour, eg their faul actions onto the Cong and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2> other
human beings, eg the local civilliants?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
No, we welcomed them with open arms in the World
Trade Association(WTA).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TSJETCHENIE - Now the Russians are doing Nam thinly over
again, do we undertake actions versus Russia?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>
No, we provide the the largets IMF Funds support, so they can continue
their genocide on the oh so poor TSJET population.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>CHINA -Creating havok with Taiwan and
surpressing Tibet (Daila Lhama). Are we taking actions?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2> No,
we even give them HongKong, Guam, Macao so they can surpress them too. We also
allow China into the WTA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Great all this "Justice by US Government and its marionets"
ain't it? And now who, especially in ther eye, are the real
'suckers'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>(victims) </FONT>of the sentimalist theatre
thus far ever ???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I hope Joe, that from this, you can see were too much
sentiment, ration and unreasonability, biasedness, and fact and fiction can
meet</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"drastically", with unforseen causes/actions to naturally
follow. </FONT><FONT size=2>We humans ignore a lot, but will/do not
forget.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I hope too, that a next elected US-gov, will see that they
have "a face" to the outside world as well to keep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>By what is happening with the ruling, this face is not a
pretty one. Not for the (intellectual) property of induviduals (he, the "All
American Dream")</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and especially not </FONT><FONT size=2>true for free
enterprise rights that are blocked by mob</FONT><FONT size=2>support and
gangbanging actions with other companies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The US is not that Free and Liberty country as they would like
the world to believe that it is. And that on its turn is not good "exchange
power"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>to convince the other ex-communist countries to let free
enterprise set its own rules and standards. The consumer has the last word
and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>can decide (and vote with its feed) against or for a product.
If otherco's are not capable to produce these goods, let them seek
professional</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>advice and not start an ordinairy brawl in a mediocre
cafe. </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.<BR>Homepage <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> zondag 16 januari 2000 19:54</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A simple clearing up of a misstatement by Ton (whom I
respect for his contributions to the group), if I may. The Department of
Justice is part of the Executive Branch of the United States government. The
Federal Court in which the trial is taking place in part of the Judicial
Branch of the United States government. The Department of Justice is the
public prosecutor in this trial, and Microsoft is the defendant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Having said that, it is the Judge (not the DOJ) who was
written a Findings of Fact, which is his legal document summarizing the
allegations that were proven to be true on the basis of evidence presented by
>both< sides in the trial. It is the Judge who will determine what, if
any, penalties that will be applied to Microsoft, but that is the cart before
the horse. The only roles for the DOJ have been to prosecute the trial and to
possibly agree to an out-of-court settlement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>After the evidentiary portion of the trial was completed,
there are 3 steps :</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. the Judge's Findings of Fact,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. the Judge's Findings of Law, stating which, if any,
specific laws were broken by Microsoft (the trial could stop with this
step),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. the Judge's ruling on how Microsoft will be punished if
it is determined that laws were broken.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The domestic and world press can't present an accurate
picture of this entire proceeding if an detailed script were handed to them.
That's unfortunate, because shareholders like Ton are largely misinformed
about almost all details of the trial. But Ton's rights as a shareholder do
not supersede the rights of people and companies who have been victimized by
Microsoft's business practices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As far as the final outcome is concerned, don't be surprised
if Microsoft cuts a deal with the Department of Justice. At least in this way
it has some control over the outcome. If it refuses to do so, the matter is
entirely in the hands of the judge, over whom Microsoft has no influence
whatsoever, nor does the DOJ have any influence over the judge. This entire
matter can remain in the courts, assuming that Microsoft makes continual
appeals, until most of us are in the grave, but that would not help its stock
price as Wall Street would begin to sense that too much management
attention is being diverted from running the business. Look at the
actions of the tobacco companies and their stocks if you want a model of a
losing cause stretched beyond all rational sensibilities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Contrary to the experience of the breakup of the telephone
companies, the breakup of Microsoft (who knows if that will happen) will not
necessarily produce the same outcome as far as investors are concerned. A
Microsoft divided cannot use its monopoly position is one arena to create a
monopoly position in other arenas, which is precisely what it did with abusive
use of its OS license to create a near monopoly in office suite applications
and to work toward a near monopoly in internet browsers, in effect setting
itself up to control the internet revolution for its personal benefit. In
every way possible Microsoft has served to restrict my choices as a consumer.
To Ton's benefit, the DOJ's ineptitude in the last case that Microsoft lost to
the DOJ is the reason that we are in an even worse situation
today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Microsoft should consider itself lucky that some its
executives and low-level managers are not in jail today for the perjured
testimony that they gave in the trial. In one instance they falsified
videotapes as proof of an assertion they had made in court that Windows and IE
could not be separated within causing the OS to malfunction. That they
falsified the evidence was discovered almost immediately. This made a mockery
of ethical behavior, which is something that respects fair and reasonable
conduct, and it made clear Microsoft's disdain of what testimony under oath
means. Microsoft deserves a financial penalty of huge proportion to make
sure that it will not repeat such conduct in the future, because it would be
suicide to do so for its shareholders, which includes its own executives and
employees. Wall Street institutions are major shareholders of Microsoft
equities, who would not tolerate the future possibility of risking their
investment to "loose cannon on the deck" actions of irresponsible managers
inside the company. Bill Gates will find that he is no longer the wealthiest
man in the US if Microsoft continues to behave abusively and illegally in the
marketplace.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I respect companies who succeed by virtue of the technical
superiority of their ideas and their products. I do not find an ally in
companies who attempt to destroy the products of other companies not by their
own superiority but by their breaking of laws to further their business ends.
But I have no prediction for Microsoft's fate, and no one else knows what it
will be either. Certainly not the press nor the rumor mills of Wall Street.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </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>Metastock-List <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Sunday, January 16, 2000 08:07 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: to be or not to
be<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A last note on this subject:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are several rumours going on that the DOJ will give
out his FINAL findings report</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and FINAL ruling somewhere in the next month, eg Febr
2000.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>At that time of publicing of the Final report and the
DOJ's Final ruling, the Microsoft share</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and </FONT><FONT size=2>any </FONT><FONT size=2>of
its other listings, will (</FONT><FONT size=2>have to) be suspended
(see also further below).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Now:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- Anyone owning a share(or other listing) ON
that moment of suspension, </FONT><FONT size=2>will be elagable for any
payments</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> coming out of any later to be
filed compansation claims (if these </FONT><FONT size=2>compensation
actions</FONT><FONT size=2> are also started).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- Anyone owning a share(or other listing) AFTER
</FONT><FONT size=2>they will come back into listing again,</FONT><FONT
size=2> are not elegable to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> any results that can stem from any results
coming out of claim procedures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This is standard Exchanges procedure, when a listing's
rumerous vital information will be publicaly </FONT><FONT
size=2>announced</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>that can have a large effect on the underlay's
listing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thus, Buy the stock BEFORE the last final word comes out
!!!.</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></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>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<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:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx"; title=anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>A.J.
Maas</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Metastock-List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> zaterdag 15 januari 2000
23:47</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to
be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am speaking from a user and shareholder's point of
view, and not forgetting what is right and what is wrong. That makes
me a happy go round type of private person and part-owner. Whatever
covered </FONT><FONT size=2>communism is to be brought upon me or my
properties, will be met accordingly. The DOJ is a biased state employed
marrionet, that probably not personaly, but indeed combined with his
mates, the Gov+States, will figurerarly bleed for his actions or
any by him taken actions, that will or can at any way and at any
time damage my own (intellectual) possesions and properties, eg shares
and stuff.</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> zaterdag 15 januari 2000
18:10</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to
be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>TM: I am assuming US law not to be any
different than laws elswhere. If there is to be an unsatisfactory
outcome coming from this dispute, then the European Commission has got
some artillary it wants to throw at Microsoft too. In that, laws are
laws. Again, this artillary is intervering with one's private
properties and free enterprise. As such the Shareholders Association
here in the Netherlands and its sister organisations elswhere in the
EuroCommunity are ready to fully head-on attack the EC's
Commission, naturaly with endless claims to follow. Claims that will
be coming in from around the globe. Where these Governments around the
globe seems to team up (the EC has a deal with the US Fed, to await
the outcome first), more many is in the hand of shareholders. Enough
to break societies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and their Governments to realy go into bankruptcy.
Now how will that effect the consumer ??</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>TM: Microsoft is at liberty to end licences for
their software as they wish. So is Compaq at liberty to develope their
own software. If their to lazy or not aggressive enough or not
financed enough, then they should seek advise from professionals,
as to how to be succesfull in software too. Also Compaq is at liberty
to refuse to sell Microsoft products with their computers too, and let
buying an OS up to their own customers. Not a very clever thing
to do, but its their right and choise. The negative side of this is
that Microsoft might than not sell enough of its software, and than
that would be up to Microsoft to solve. Here Microsoft has done its
homework, where Compaq </FONT><FONT size=2>enriched its executives
while they did not do their homework, eg were failures and ought
to be sacked. Just see how easy Dell surpassed the utherly simple
selling techniques Compaq enherrited from the late 80's and were the
co is to log and did not adjust. IBM for that matter is an equal
example. Not all brains and a lot of company arrogance. Good on them.
Gives other users a chance to buy much cheaper PC's with the same or
in the case of IBM, much better advances and qualities. </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>TM: All the right in the world. Simply because of
the fact that Compaq will have to meet the owners standards, in this
Microsoft standards (and not ever the other way around) if it wants to
gain a legal licensce from the owners of the software, weather this
will be Microsoft or for example, Ton Maas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If I notice that one of my copyrighted indicators is
being sold or being mis-used, I will also sue that person/co, since I
have not given out any written permission to anyone to do so or to
make any changes to it. It is my (intellectual) property/propriety and
I am the only one at right liberty to do with it as I see fit, eg and
how I pleases. If I notice for instance, that you want to use it in a
weekly magizine's software, for example for its weekly Hot
tips-section, be sure that I will take on action to prevend it or come
to some sort of arrangement, where "not using SuperChart software" for
example could be included in the license.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></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>Microsoft is not forcing any one to use the Internet
Exploder. You can even easy write (f.i. in VB) your own browser.
Neither is it also forcing anyone to use its Microsoft Exchange
program, you know that very dreadfull program, its to simple
MsPaint or NotePad programs. You should feel lucky that these
programs come free with the OEM and OSR versions. You are at your own
liberty to use these programs or "overwrite" with other perhaps better
quality software programs. Also my ISP for instance was also giving
its users free licenses for the Netscape v1.0 to v3.0 browsers,
whilst anyone using different browsers were not supported. If
Netscape had forced these tactics onto my ISP is to be seen and
basicaly irrellevent to me, since I could confince the ISP that I
didn't need their support, eg since the IE browser wasn't giving me
any problems at all and since it seemingly fitted in with my OS, as
though "it was there since I bought my PC". And any browser
upgrades (note for free as well) were only large improvements,
that much that I am still running a in 1997 for the last time
installed Win95 OS version and that the latest browser
version, the IE5x, just -by itselve- made the
just-about-what-anyone-needed upgrade to and especially the by me
required upgrade to a "smaller version of Win98". I only miss out on
some file maintance tools and some extra window colouring schemes
(but then again who needs these). </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>TM: Ofcourse it has these rights since it is
protecting its property. Assume you don't have car-jacks in the
States? Where the rightfull owner of a car gets forced by a car-jacker
to get out of his/hers car, and the car-jacker takes off with the
car. Now how would you feel? Having protective tools with you,
can prefent you to loose your car, eg it is after all your rightfull
pressious property, aint it? Or should we say "Please do get
in......".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In business life its not different, therefore
common sense (that is if you/company have any) teaches you and co's to
protect your/their property(ies).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></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>TM: IBM doesn't have to sell Microsoft software.
They have their own dreadfull OS, named OS2. IBM can than also
install their too simple and too basic Lotus program on their PCs
too. PC that do not work properly, an OS that doesn't work properly
and an office suite that no-one wants, nice combination to hit the All
Time Highs on the stockmarkets, ain't it? Remember too that you as
shareholder are part-owner of that company too? Unless US laws
differ from elsewhere.</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>TM: You too have the right(not the obligation) to
tell the shopkeeper that you do not want Microsoft software. It is
then up to the shopkeeper to refund you for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>missing the OS, which since its only a US $50 cost,
he most likely will not do. Tell him that you will go to the shop
next-door, and perhaps you can pursway the salesman. Else when you are
at home with your new PC, un-install Windows. Whatever you do after is
up to you, and not the reasponsability of Microsoft, the former
shopkeeper(s) or anyone lese, no it is all in your own hands, free and
at liberty to isntall other software, eg like the above mentioned OS2,
PCDOS, UNIX,LINUX, and several others that are around. That said, good
luck with it.</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>TM: The whole issue here is not Microsoft, but the
arrogance of other co's and especially Governments(like said that
holds the largest amount of true monopolies)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and their teamsters, the so called independent
states. If other co's want to be succesfull at something, then
first they should show and be an aggressive player, have intrest to
develope new things, want to change their inside attitudes, seek
advise from real professionals that can scan the company on its faults
and employ the right workers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If not, then they are take-over candidates, of which
formentioned companies will then be the victum. Besides all this
said, I couldn't give a heep if IBM, Compaq or whatever co for that
matter goes down, they call it upon themselves, and it is
never due to other co's that do all in their power and make the
right efforts to meet up with the above criterea. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Jan 20 07:13:33 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 BAA23680
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:14:47 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17665
for metastock-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:44:04 -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 AAA17662
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:44:01 -0700
Received: from mailer.netup.cl (root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [200.14.80.21])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA05370;
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:55:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from netup.cl (iv1-126.netup.cl [200.29.11.126])
by mailer.netup.cl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23505;
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 04:39:53 -0300
Message-ID: <3886CA33.A673B708@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:41:24 -0600
From: Rajesh <rajesh@xxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, support@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: EQUIS :Re: BUG: Downloader ver 7.0 Symbol Update
References: <38812A4E.2703A40E@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Rajesh wrote:
> I am unable to update the symbol database thru the Tools/Update Symbol
> Database. Has the bug been fixed as yet or not. My symbol database
> should be about 2 months old.
>
> Pls advise.
>
> Rajesh
|