Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S132447AbQLJAqe>; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:46:34 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S132452AbQLJAqY>; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:46:24 -0500
Received: from vger.timpanogas.org ([207.109.151.240]:50184 "EHLO
	vger.timpanogas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S132447AbQLJAqO>; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:46:14 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 18:11:30 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: NTFS repair tools]
Message-ID: <20001209181130.A15531@vger.timpanogas.org>
In-Reply-To: <3A3066EC.3B657570@timpanogas.org> <E144O4d-0003vd-00@the-village.bc.nu> <20001208113340.B4730@vger.timpanogas.org> <m17l59tfpx.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <m17l59tfpx.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>; from ebiederm@xmission.com on Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:03:22PM -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:03:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org> writes:
> Hmm. If this is the case then shouldn't someone point this out.  To the
> antitrust lawyers.  You present this as a clear case of deliberately
> preventing interoperability between NT and linux.
> 
> The generous side of me suggests that they might be trying to fix some
> mistakes, or enhance things.  Linux isn't standing still on the fs
> format issue either.
> 
> Eric

I think the anitrust issues are moot -- they have had their way already
with Microsoft.  They've been left beaten and crippled in the eyes of 
the general public.  Large Customers seem to not be swallowing .NET.

Their behavior is inconsistent with the Trial Judge's ruling.  Technically,
by pursuing .NET, they are not observing the spirit of the ruling.  If 
you get a ruling put on you by a court, you are supposed to observe what
it says and correct your behavior, even if the execution order was stayed 
by the court pending appeal.  The Judge did not set aside the ruling --
it's still there.  

Because of this, any investment in Microsoft strategies by large enterprise 
customers are an unknown until the appeals court makes a determination.  
Microsoft is also setting itself up for a contempt order by doing this. 
The trial court told them to stay out of the internet business with their 
operating systems business unit.  Their compliance has been illusionary 
with the court's ruling, and unless the appeals court vacates the ruling, 
they could be in big trouble.  

If I were the DOJ, I would already be putting together an OFC for 
filing with the trial court.  They are also doing the worst possible
thing you can do while a case is on appeal, which is to ignore the 
trial court's rulings, and resorting to character assisination of 
the trial judge.   

Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/