Okay just to play devils advocate. (Not that I'm particularly fond of
Micro$oft) but, why would a company be legally required to make a software
package for Linux? or Apple?  Wouldn't the same then have to apply to all
software manufacturers.  I just don't see that one standing.  I think that
they should have to take IM, IE, NetMeeting, OE, and all the other stuff
that they imbed out of Windows.  I mean if you try and install a rival for
some "mysterious" reason it just doesn't work quite right with Windows the
way the Microsoft stuff does.  It's like an old teacher of mine used to say.
Microsoft like Microsoft and heaven help you if you try and interfere with
that relationship.



-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Mendelsohn [mailto:phil at rephil.org]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:06 PM
To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org
Subject: [TCLUG] MS Settlement


For no particular reason I glanced at www.kstp.com, and one of the
headlines for today was about the nine states holding out on the M$
settlement.  One of the things that they are pushing for is a
restriction that make M$ have to supply apps for other OS's.  They
specifically mentioned that M$ threatened to cease making Office or
Word for Apple (Mac), and that that sort of thing would be forbidden.

The thought occurred to me that this would be the time to write to
Mike Hatch (and the other boys/girls) at the MN AG's orifice and let
them know that not only should M$ have to provide apps for Apple, but
that they should be forced to make a version for Linux.

Not only is it satisfyingly ironic and I'd love to see Gates and
Ballmer's apoplectic gasket-blowing reaction, but it's a fair and
valid legal point.

What say all y'all?

-- 
"Trying to do something with your life is like
sitting down to eat a moose." --Douglas Wood
_______________________________________________
Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
http://www.mn-linux.org
tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list