Judge Orders Microsoft Split in Two

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000607/ts/microsoft_leadall_dc.html

Wednesday June 7 4:46 PM ET Judge Orders Microsoft Split in Two

By David Lawsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday ordered software powerhouse Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news) to be split in two in a final antitrust ruling that could change the face of computing around the world.

No breakup of the company is imminent. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled the company would remain intact until the appeals process is exhausted and Microsoft immediately vowed to appeal.

If the judgement is upheld, it would be the harshest antitrust penalty leveled against a U.S. corporation since AT&T agreed to spin off the ``baby bell'' regional phone companies in 1982.

The Microsoft case is one of the biggest antitrust battles in history, often compared with the breakup of oil baron John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1911.

Judge Jackson said one of the new Microsoft companies would develop and sell operating systems such as Windows for personal computers and the other would own Microsoft's remaining software and online businesses.

``Microsoft, as it is presently organized and led, is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct,'' Jackson said in his 23-page remedy order.

Microsoft's stock, which had closed up 7/8 at 70-1/2 on the Nasdaq market, was halted in after-hours trading following the judge's order.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said immediately after the ruling that, as expected, the company would appeal. ``We have a very strong appeal,'' Gates said.

Since its 1975 founding, Microsoft has grown to become the world's most valuable software company with annual revenues of over $20 billion a year. It has made Chairman Bill Gates one of the world's richest men and helped keep the United States at the forefront of the digital age.

Microsoft Software Used Around The World

With 60 foreign offices and its software used from Argentina to Zimbabwe, a breakup would eventually affect computer users worldwide.

The U.S. Justice Department and 17 of the states that sued Microsoft proposed the split after Jackson concluded April 3 that the firm broke U.S. antitrust law.

The government says that splitting Microsoft would prevent the Windows system, that runs on over 80 percent of personal computers, from being used to force companies and consumers to use other Microsoft products.

Cleaving the company in two could also encourage development of alternative operating systems and prompt versions of programs like Microsoft Office to run on those systems.

Microsoft, which expects to win on appeal, says a breakup would harm consumers by preventing it from developing integrated products. The firm also says it would damage employee moral and hurt investors.

The U.S. Justice Department and 20 states brought the case against Microsoft in May 1998, accusing the software giant of using its monopoly in the Windows personal computer operating system to leverage market share for its Internet browser software.

The trial began Oct. 19, 1998, featuring efforts by the government to contrast company emails with the videotaped testimony of Gates.

In November last year, Jackson found Microsoft had monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems and had used that dominance to harm consumers and other companies.

Efforts to settle the case using a special mediator proved fruitless and Jackson ruled April 3. that Microsoft had broken the law.

Microsoft's appeal could bypass the normal appeals court process and go straight to the Supreme Court under a mechanism available in major antitrust cases. But several legal experts said they believed the high court would decline to receive the case on an expedited basis.

It appears unlikely the case will be fully resolved before swearing in of a new president in January -- either Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites) or Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites). There is speculation in Washington that Bush would be more skeptical of the government case.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000

Answers

There's a lot of talk on the microsoft campus about moving the company to British Columbia, Canada were the government would appreciate the revinues they crwate and would not be out to screw the company for their accomplishments. It's a short move and would not cost all that much to move them.

It's time to vote out the old men in our government who resent not being able to control business like in the past and vote in people who are up with the times.

The new technology businesses are not as easily controlled as the old ones from the industrial revelution were. The government hates the internet and it's freedom for citizens. Tuff Titty, the times they are a changen.

But again Microsoft could pull all of it's products off the market and see how all these little companies that are being crushed by microsoft do trying to replace what is esentially a seemless technology.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 07, 2000.


Cherri -

Where on the campus? I ask because that whole "MSFT to BC" story was generated by an offer/press conference by a lower level Canadian official who frankly seemed like they were doing a bit of grandstanding. Does anyone seriously think that the US government wouldn't whack MSFT soundly if it tried to avoid the ruling by moving to Canada? NAFTA wouldn't save 'em, that's for sure. And if the Microserfs think they can pack up and head north and everything will be beer and skittles, they obviously haven't taken a good look at Canada tax laws.

MSFT stock has taken off in afterhours trading; up to 72 when last I looked. Market had priced in the breakup ruling when it bounced off 60 and now the appeals process will limit bad legal news for a year or so. All good.

By the bye: your posting didn't read much like Cherri's normal work. Any reason why that might be the case?

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 07, 2000.


>Microsoft ... says a breakup would harm consumers by preventing it from developing integrated products.

Sorta like a housing developer who has a 95% lock on the housing market (achieved and maintained through various strongarm practices) and decides that it woud benefit consumers to integrate all the household appliances into the structure. Make every house a package deal with refrigerator, stove, washer, dryer, etc. built into the house structure, not as separate items that plug into wall sockets and have pipe fixtures, but with their wiring and plumbing made seamless parts of the overall house electrical and plumbing systems.

Prospective buyer: "But your refrigerator is ugly, inefficient, and unreliable."

Developer: "Well, it's part of the package deal. Take it or leave it. If you don't like the fridge, buy yourself another."

Prospective buyer: "And you'll take off the cost of your fridge from the house price?"

Developer: "Like I said, it's a package deal. One package -- one price. We don't sell a house without integrated appliances." Prospective buyer: "So just give me some refund when I deliver your refrigerator back to you after I carefully disconnect it and transport it back to you unused."

Developer: "Nope. Standard shrinkwrap policy. Once you open the door the first time after the sale, it's all yours, and we don't take stuff back. Of course, if you should notice a problem with any of your appliances, we have a toll-free number for your convenience in reporting it."

Prospective buyer: "And then you'll send someone to fix or replace it?"

Developer: "Uhh ... that's not part of the warranty. But we'll give you another toll-free number where you can find out how to obtain do-it-yourself repair instructions for future revisions to your appliance."

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.


Cherri,

>It's time to vote out the old men in our government who resent not being able to control business like in the past and vote in people who are up with the times.

Hee, hee. That's funny.

Maybe you've forgotten the news stories back in early 1993 about how the Clinton folks were appalled to find, when they moved into the White House, that all the technology there was three decades out-of-date?

It's the current Executive Branch leaders who brought modern computers and communications technology into the White House.

We already voted the "old men" out in 1992, Cherri.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.


In accordance with DeeEmBee (that doesn't seem like the usual Cherri back there), make that "Cherri" (with quotes) in my preceding note.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.


The only question that matters is this one: did Microsoft break this nation's well-established and time-tested antitrust laws? If not, Jackson ruled improperly. If so, then his ruling is entirely proper.

That Microsoft can claim to be an "innovator" (which I'd argue with, by the way) or "good for the economy" (which I'd also argue with) is irrelevant to that one question. That the Clinton administration may only be doing this for political reasons, or because Bill Gates didn't tithe enough money to the DNC, or etc., or etc., is also utterly immaterial.

The ONLY question that matters is, "did Microsoft violate the law?"

The judge -- with reason, IMNSHO -- says, "yes, they did."

I'm a conservative and have been a Rush Limbaugh fan for years, but he's lost me on this one. During the Clinton impeachment, he kept screaming, "it doesn't MATTER how popular Clinton is! If he broke the law, he should be punished!" His flip in this case is worse than hypocritical. Why does he (and so many conservatives) feel the exact opposite here? Where's the principle of "a nation of laws at any cost" now? Aren't we the ones who supposedly stand on that firm principle?

Either we're a nation of laws, or we're not. Two wrongs don't make a right, either. The fact that I got caught for speeding and you got away with it is no defense: I still have to pay the fine.

Likewise: there may be other companies engaging in similar practices, but which have been ignored because they haven't been noticed, or aren't as big (or as lucrative a target) as Microsoft. That's utterly irrelevant as well.

The whole issue of antitrust is problematic for us conservatives. On the one hand, we love free enterprise and free markets. On the other, anyone who's ever played Monopoly knows that, in a completely free market, the inevitable end result (and the operative term is "inevitable") is one guy owning everything.

Thus, both conservatives AND liberals have passed laws to keep the playing field at least remotely fair and level. If those laws are wrong or unfair, then they need to be changed. But as long as predatory marketing practices are illegal under CURRENT law, that law should be enforced. Jackson has enforced it.

My personal opinion (take it for what it's worth):

As soon as I saw that interoffice email in which Microsoft ADMITTED deliberately targeted Netscape for destruction, I knew (as did anyone who DOES know the anti-trust laws) that they were in deep kimchee. I believe THEY knew it, too.

It has been fascinating to me to watch Microsoft's attitudes during that trial. At first, they were defiant and combative. Bill Gates and Company treated the court with thinly-vieled contempt (which, speaking objectively, was a DUMB legal maneuver, anyway; you DON'T go out of your way to antagonize a federal judge!).

But after that email came out, they started sweating. After Jackson ruled that they were, in fact, a monopoly and further, that had used their monopoly power to squash competition, the sweat started pouring.

In my opinion, THAT'S why Microsoft went on the public-relations warpath. Their ONLY hope was to stir public sentiment (hasn't worked; most people don't care), because legally, they were sunk and they KNEW it.

And I think the appeals courts will UPHOLD this decision (and they SHOULD).

We could argue all day long about whether Microsoft has been good for the industry. Personally, I think they've done some good, yes, but I don't see them as especially "innovative." (Take long file names, for example; Microsoft acted like they invented it, when in fact, other operating systems -- including an old modified version of CP/M that I had on a Z80-based klunker many years ago -- had them.) They're primarily marketing whizzes.

Hey, nothing wrong with that -- in principle. I couldn't care less that Bill Gates is a skazillionaire, either. More power to him. If he wants to leave MSFT in a snit (which would fit his personality, in my opinion -- he has always been combative and hyper-competitive, but has also had a tendency to pout and whine and take his ball and storm home on those rare occasions when he has lost) and start another company and make ANOTHER zillion dollars, may he live long and prosper. I couldn't possibly care less.

For the last time: the only thing that matters is whether Microsoft broke the clearly-defined (and well-established by precedent) anti-trust laws of this nation.

I believe the answer is "yes" and I believe that the government's plan for a breakup is entirely appropriate.

Further, I believe the future will be BETTER for computing as a result. Clueless morons whose skill is limited to clicking pretty icon-thingies might struggle with a small learning curve for a bit, but in the long run, we'll be much better off.

Two reasons: (1) as a matter of principle, monopolies are NEVER good, and (2), there are actually a lot of extremely bright and innovative people writing programs which never see the light of day because Microsoft's monopoly has swamped them out of the marketplace.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 07, 2000.


I could not care less about MSFT...but I think that antitrust laws are totally uncalled for. The Market must be free, other nations profit from early collusion and later competition. Sure MSFT is enjoying it's hegemony now, but nothing is forever.

MSFT heading off to BC, now that's funny.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), June 08, 2000.


I can complain about "my kid" but nobody else can.

Yes that was me and yes I am defending Microsoft. The old men I'm talking about are the judges.

For anyone who saw Bill Gates on night line smirking and even with a shutting grin now and again, a lot of us were doing it with him. The judge was irate that Bill Gates wasn't contrite. Poor sap! His history on the bench speaks for itself, a corrupt idiot who thinks the government should control everything.

For those who understand, it's beginning-no it has for a time now looked like "Reardon Metal". Yes Steve and ED this one's for you. That's why you would never have been allowed into "the valley" you never understood what it was all about. You never did "get it". I told you that Y2K was just a symptom.

people would do well to learn about what microsoft is really all about it isn't that big in the first place, and they especially Bill Gates, have encouraged competition. They have bailed out Apple enough times. It was microsoft who worked to build "the bridge" that allows Mac software to interact with microsoft. Microsoft and it's workers have given more money to this country (and others) than the government in social aid. Microsoft gives it's software to schools, it doesn't play politics with the kids like the politicians do. Bill Gates hasn't worked for pay in a decade. And he is a good Father. Just because he has not let the government corrupt him and control him "the good ol boys" of government resent him.

And think, especially those of you who never saw a computer until you got your desktop, there were dozens of computers desktop computers with different operating systems around 10, 15 years ago. Microsoft, through their aggression whipped virtually all of them out. If they had not done that then you would not be sitting there reading this right now. It had to be done, there needed to be a common platform for the technology to get where it would interact with each other. Take Y2K, most people had to go get fixes from microsoft, if there were 15 different dominate desktop operating systems, they would only have been able to communicate with their own kind, not interactivly and the ability of information on the internet would have been severely hampered if it existed at all. Instead of resenting the accomplishment of others who have done a good job, people should aspire to emulate them. I may have strong belief in the integrity of our military but that does not bleed over into acceptance of the "good ole boys club" of predominantly southern politics. They are the dinosaurs now, the economy is being driven by intellectual products, not physical ones these days. They can either get with the program or be laughed out of their political seats. What economy does the United States export? Boeing is one of the biggest and microsoft/software is another. We would be in one hell of a depression if not for them. So quitcha bitchen about the silver spoon that is feeding you.

And if anyone is good enough to do what microsoft has-do it and stop whining because someone else hasn't done it.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 08, 2000.


That's the way the mop flops.

Don't be so hard on Microsoft, No Spam. As long as the buyer understands how to rip the walls of her new home to shreds and cut / restore all electrical wiring and plumbing after they have removed the hard-coded appliances, and finally patching all gaping holes, she should be all set.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), June 08, 2000.


Sorry for my unfortunate English skills.

Make that, "...after she has removed..."

and, "...finally patch all gaping holes..."

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), June 08, 2000.



Hear hear to Cherri's last. Enthusiastic applause.

But all of this is moot. Microsoft is a starfish. Let them cut MS into 6 small pieces, in 2 years there will be 6 multi-billion dollar MS's, each with its own specialism, each innovating and changing the rules within its sector, and conmensurate with their Galtian ethic, they'd all be the most successful at what they did.

Imagine a separate and independent MS-Apps spin-off, freed to develop Back Office (and the like) for STABLE OS PLATFORMS ?? BackOffice for Linux ??? WOW.

Now thats a potential world beating product.

And a MS-Networks division, free to leverage their experience towards a whole suite of specialist network OS's and architectures, without the ball-and-chain of the parent and the stand-alone platform.

Leave em or break em, MS cant be legislated away. They'll just get stronger.

FofA

-- Fan of achievement (dagny@galtsgulch.com), June 08, 2000.


FoA -

Do you work in the IT field? If so, for how long? I ask because your breathless prose about "The Wonder That Is MSFT" seems to bespeak a lack of experience in the industry.

If Softee hadn't had the leverage of Windows, MS Office would never have taken over the desktop. I used Word when it first came out and it was absolutely awful. Ditto Excel. MSFT just kept pounding away with releases while ensuring that competitive products like WordPerfect and 1-2-3 didn't quite work as nicely with Windoze as the homegrown products. I've also worked for companies that competed with MSFT and I have friends in the industry who still do. Microsoft's strong-arm tactics and propensity for favoring MS products and sabotaging competitors are well-known.

Do I use MS products? Yep, they've gotten to a point where they're quite nice to use.

Do I think Mister Softee will do fine if and when there's a break-up. Yep, just like Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

Do I consider MSFT to be one of the most innovative companies in the business. LOL!

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 08, 2000.


'Afternoon, y'all...

I haven't had a chance yet to read many of your posts, which look quite interesting from the skimming I've just done, but I plan to do so. Apologies if this has been covered already.

Anyway, my take:

To the extent that Microsoft committed fraud, breach of contract, patent infringement, bribes, destruction of property, blackmail, or other specific acts of force or fraud against other entities or individuals, then they and/or their officers should be appropriately punished through fines and/or imprisonment.

There should be no breakup of the company because anti-trust laws are immoral, as they punish a company and its owners and entrepreneurs because it is/they are successful, and use vague, incomprehensible terms and phrases (e.g., "restraint of trade") that any bureaucrat, at his/her whim, can choose to interpret any way he/she wishes, depending on their mood and/or their politics, and/or their envy or hatred of the successful.

The only monopolies that really deserve to be broken up are the real, permanent ones, such as the post office and the public schools; and if I were in power, the complete and immediate elimination of the anti-trust laws would be one of the first and easiest calls I'd ever have to make.

Wow -- I think I've just broken a personal record for the number of slashed double-words in one post.

Anyway, thanks for lettin' me rant and/or vent. As the case may be.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.


While MS has always been heavy-handed, I think their in trouble because they started late in the net game. Remember? The net was already on fire, and MS didn't yet know what HTML was. When Bill did wake up, all of the sudden, EVERYTHING had to be net oriented.

I think their first mistake was to give away IE. I can see why they did. If they were going to put all efforts into the "new world" of the web, it's important for everyone to have a browser! But if they would have sold it, even if for only a few bucks, Netscape wouldn't have a case. IE and Netscape both came from the same Mosaic browser. It sure looks like MS was trying to kill Netscape by giving away their product, even if that wasn't the intent.

MS products? That's a whole 'nother story. Let's just stick with the browser for a moment. I use IE 5.01 now, at both home and work, and actually like it. It's pretty quick and quite stable. But that wasn't always the case. I hated IE 4 and never did run it at home, but was "forced" to at work. IE 3.03 was pretty nice, and I stuck with it at home 'til 5.01 came out.

Yes, I did play with Netscape, and Mosaic, and a few others, on my own. But at work, everything is MS (except 1 Novell server). MS loves people like me. My company pays them big bucks for Visual Studio and Backoffice, so we can develop "intranet" apps. But to take "full advantage" of our work, you need Internet Explorer to run it. Not everything "works quite the same" if you use Netscape, or any other browser. You know the rest of the story...

If I want to make a living as a software developer today, I'm forced to write for Win. That's not all bad. If everyone uses a common OS, a huge code base can, and has, beed developed. This is the reason for the great success of the IBM 360/370/390 mainframe. IBM, ha! Speaking of Antitrust...

Gotta run, end of rambling, for now... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.


One ironic point about Microsoft's monopoly is that the latest two email viruses, Melissa and ILOVEYOU, were so devastating in part because of Microsoft's dominance in the business market. Both viruses exploited the Visual Basic scripting features of Microsoft Outlook in order to propagate the virus to other users. This is not necessarily the fault of Microsoft, of course, but it does illustrate a case in which a common standard proves to be more of a detriment than a benefit.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 08, 2000.


-- Sysman, knock knock..hello. I'm glad you arew still around and think you discussing the things I wrote helped make it a little clearer to others in the embedded arena. You actually helped my cause when we discussed the software needed to make an embedded chip have a self-contained date program would not be a reasonable thing to do.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 08, 2000.

I worked for Standard Oil before it was broken up. I didn't see anything change except for a different name on my paycheck and a different logo on the stationery. I never even had to change buildings. Folks from American Oil worked down the hall, the production company worked a few floors down, etc. When I transferred to different "groups", the name on my paycheck changed.

I suppose it's more work for Microsoft to change logos, etc., because it's engrained in so much software, but I don't think anyone expects them to do this retroactively. Unless something changed, there will still remain a "parent" company, with "subsidiaries." The subsidiaries will have different names, but the folks keeping the books will ultimately look at the whole picture. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 08, 2000.


DeeEmBe

Yup, about 15 years all in all. And my prose about MS isnt breathless unless you read it that way. I believe in achievement, and I give respect to those who accomplish wealth through their own effort. The sound of whining voices complaining that "those big bullies wont give us OUR rightful share of the profits" makes my skin crawl. People always bought MS products because they chose to. There were ALWAYS alternatives for people who felt strongly about it.

I have to LOL at this one . . . "Microsoft's strong-arm tactics and propensity for favoring MS products and sabotaging competitors are well-known"

That could have been written by Wesley Mouch. Kindly name a company who, as part of their strategy, give equal (or greater) priority to the products of their competitors, and try their best to help the competition win market share ?

Oh, unless of course you mean MS spending fortunes to try to keep Mac in business.

Maybe you'd like to see MS nationalised, and a law passed giving all customers the RIGHT of equal access to MS products ? LOL

Much more of this crap and I'm joining the strike.

FofA

-- Fan of Achievement (dagny@galtsgulch.com), June 09, 2000.


Anita,

I worked for Standard Oil before it was broken up.

?

Standard Oil was broken up in 1911.

Are you THAT oiled? Erm, OLD?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 09, 2000.


Cherri,

Yes, I remember some of our embedded systems talks. While I'm hardly an expert in this area, I did work on a couple of "black boxes" many years ago. But that's when things were simple, by today's standards. Then, 16K was a good size ROM, and it contained everything, the OS (laugh...) and the application. Add a few K for "scratch pad" memory and a few I/O ports, and that was the whole computer!

But today, the same system would probably date/time stamp everything, on the way in and out, and save it in an array, so the diagnostic routine can compute average processing time per port, or some other such nonsense. Ain't technology grand...???...

Fan,

I've gotta say that I don't have a big problem with MS either. If they did break the law, they should be punished, but I don't think breaking up the company proves anything. Today, they have a Windows group, and an IE group, and an Office group, and a Back-Office group, and and and... So what if they get paid by Softmicro instead of Microsoft? Windows will still sell, and the applications will still sell.

I think a huge fine, and since they have so much money, I mean huge, like a significant percentage of their total stock value, would be a better punishment. Hit Bill in the wallet. Let MS help pay down the national debt a few notches...

There WERE always alternatives out there. Before windows, those of us that wanted to multi-task ran Desqview. In fact, at first, I ignored Windoze, for a while... Desqview did everything that I needed, and Win 3.0 couldn't run for more than a few hours between crashes. 3.1 was better, but still slow. Why should I bother?

Because my boss gave me a true "windows application" to work on, that's why. That's how I became a win user/programmer. I was forced into it! But in fairness, I've always liked a few MS products. I still use the MASM assembler, and have since before I knew what Desqview was! Yea, I know, some say there are better asms out there, but hey, it does the job just fine, for me...

And DOS has always been "nice" ...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 10, 2000.


Stephen:

You're absolutely right. I'm going to have to research this until I determine exactly WHAT changes occurred that I saw. This was pretty much my "right out of high-school" job, and I worked as a secretary so remember quite well the company stationery, etc. changing.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.


FoA -

You misstated my position. I didn't say "help" the competition, nor did I intend to. I said "sabotage" and meant it. When one company owns both the desktop and a major apps suite, that particular apps suite has a significant advantage, especially when the desktop has some, shall we say, "hidden features" unrevealed to competing products. Some of the features are essentially booby-traps, which are discovered at various stages during the competitor's test and QA cycle. Others give a developer a performance advantage if they know they're there. Guess who knows about 'em first? Good guess.

The break-up makes good sense. If the OS and apps products and teams are so fabulous, then having them delivered by truly separate companies should not affect innovation or quality one whit.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 10, 2000.


Dee,

But the MS people already have the info! Yes, any "hidden features" should be made public, but MS already has it in production!

Besides, while I do think MS has some "undocumented" calls, etc, they're really just shortcuts. A programmer can still do "anything" that win allows. There is no "magic" hidden inside win. If there was, people would have discovered it by now, as they have, the little that there is.

Also, as I mentioned above, there are "features" in IE that are not available in Netscape, or any other browsers. But these aren't hidden. Everyone that writes Visual Studio code takes advantage of them, even if they don't know it. They are well documented for the programmer. They are there by design.

So, is it MS's fault, for introducing "non standard" features, or Netscape's fault, for not keeping up with "new technology" ...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 10, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ