# Microsoft anti-trust **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 16, 2001, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715 "2001-10-16T13:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/21 "2001-10-17T02:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*MS has never harmed consumers, only competitors. > \*\* You’re going to have to back that up with some serious footwork, because, as the manager of a computer department in an MS shop, I feel plenty harmed by Microsoft, starting with their licencing fees, and ending with viable alternative technologies that they crushed or corrupted. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/22 "2001-10-17T04:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > > \*\*MS has never harmed consumers, only competitors. > > \*\* > > You’re going to have to back that up with some serious footwork, because, as the manager of a computer department in an MS shop, I feel plenty harmed by Microsoft, starting with their licencing fees, and ending with viable alternative technologies that they crushed or corrupted. \*\* So you have fantasies about the way the world ought to be and MS doesn’t live up to them. Is this supposed to impress anyone other than yourself? Cite specifics and I’ll address them. MS’s fees are in line with or lower than the rest of the industry. Or are you one of those people who think the only proper price for software is free? The recent MS trial found no consumer harm, so If you want to allege harm, it’s your job to make the case. tj ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/23 "2001-10-17T04:27:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*MS has never harmed consumers, only competitors. > \*\* Rubbish. The first complaints came from consumers who could not access QT movies on their favorite websites, including some sites that are all-MS (except for QT). > [@](#): > > The last time this sort of accusation of MS breaking QT (and also RealAudio’s) software came up a bit of investigation proved that it was actually Apple’s (and Real’s) fault rather than MS’s. > > The smart bet is that the same will be true this time once the details come out. The details HAVE come out. This one is pure Microsoft monopolism. Microsoft removed support in IE5.5 for all Netscape APIs, and required all plugin authors to rewrite their plugs for ActiveX. This was just another nail in the coffin of Netscape. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If they don’t pay, no MS products will be allowed for sale in Europe, period. > > :rolleyes: Dream on, this would do more harm to the economies of Europe than it would to MS. This is the same total BS I always hear from Microsoft toadies. You are making a fundamental mistake, equating the fortunes of MS with the fortunes of the world economy as a whole. If MS doesn’t make money off computer OS purchases, some other company will. MS is a monopolist because it wants to earn ALL the money in the computer industry. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/24 "2001-10-17T04:43:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*The recent MS trial found no consumer harm, so If you want to allege harm, it’s your job to make the case. > \*\* You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The verdict specifically said that consumers were harmed. I don’t need to make the case because the court has already ruled that consumers were harmed. That is the whole point of the Sherman Antitrust act, when consumers are barred from making alternative choices due to anticompetitive monopolistic actions of a company, that is by its very definition harming consumers. Go read the verdict before spouting more Microsoft propaganda. [http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,35391,00.html](http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,35391,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/25 "2001-10-17T04:56:56Z")
> [@](#): > > If MS doesn’t make money off computer OS purchases, some other company will. Which I’m sure won’t have any effect on companies integrating those computers into networks with Windows computers, or who share software between European and American branches. And all the software on the market will convert itself to be compatable with whatever OS Europe switches to. And that said OS will offer all the benefits of Windows, and support all the same hardware. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > MS is a monopolist because it wants to earn ALL the money in the computer industry. Hell, in that case, I’m a monopolist. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/26 "2001-10-17T07:10:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chas.E \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > > \*\*The recent MS trial found no consumer harm, so If you want to allege harm, it’s your job to make the case. > > \*\* > > You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The verdict specifically said that consumers were harmed. I don’t need to make the case because the court has already ruled that consumers were harmed. That is the whole point of the Sherman Antitrust act, when consumers are barred from making alternative choices due to anticompetitive monopolistic actions of a company, that is by its very definition harming consumers. > > Go read the verdict before spouting more Microsoft propaganda. > > [http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,35391,00.html](http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,35391,00.html) \*\* Don’t bother to quote Jackson’s ruling. The court of appeals threw it out, remember? Jackson was censured for bias after all. The only part of his ruling that was upheld was that MS is a monopoly and that it engaged in exclusionary contracts. Even this biased ruling couldn’t point to any _actual_ consumer harm, although it did toss around a bit of rhetoric about **belief** in harm. That’s fairly unimpressive given Jackson’s general cluelessnes and they way the Appeals court repudiated him. “I can’t cite any actual harm to consumers, but I’m pretty sure that there is some in there” doesn’t cut it in a court of law. Not even when it’s the Judge talking. In Jacksons Findings of Fiction, he admitted that MS prices were too low to be monopoly rents, but he asserted without reference to any evidence that they COULD charge more if they wanted to. tj ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/27 "2001-10-17T09:54:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Tejota \* > Don’t bother to quote Jackson’s ruling. The court of appeals threw it out, remember? Jackson was censured for bias after all. The only part of his ruling that was upheld was that MS is a monopoly and that it engaged in exclusionary contracts._\* No, the Finding was upheld in its entirety, with the exception of one area, the IE bundling issue. Jackson was not censured for bias, he was censured for speaking to the press, in violation of judiciary standards. The appeals court held that he did not show any bias. Remember, judges are SUPPOSED to make judgements about the defendants, their credibility, their conduct, etc. That’s the whole POINT of the judiciary system. If you’re going to desperately cling to your completely erroneous ideas about this lawsuit, then there is no point in even attempting to place the facts before you. I give up. You are incorrigibly ignorant, and will remain so. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/28 "2001-10-17T19:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Chas.E \* > > Recently MS released an update to Internet Explorer for Windows. It had only one major feature: it broke Apple’s Quicktime. > > The last time this sort of accusation of MS breaking QT (and also RealAudio’s) software came up a bit of investigation proved that it was actually Apple’s (and Real’s) fault rather than MS’s. If you’re referring to the “broken Quicktime” incident that popped up during the antitrust trial itself, it _did_ turn out to be Microsoft finangling with the system. Quick summary: In November 1998, Apple software VP Avie Tevanian testified that Microsoft had introduced bugs into Windows to prevent QuickTime from working properly. After Avie left the stand, Microsoft issued a press release stating that the bugs were in fact in QuickTime, not in Windows, and the whole problem was due to Apple’s programming errors – the bug was that QuickTime didn’t properly register three of eleven filename extensions with Windows – namely, “.qt,” “.vfw,” and “.aifc.” **However…** In Apple’s own specs for QuickTime Digital Video File Formats,_none_ of those three “improperly supported” filename extensions is actually a valid Quicktime filename extension at all. No one is 100% certain, but it seems like the “rogue extensions” were used by Windows when saving Quicktime media off the internet, which then failed to play because they had illegal (according to Apple’s specs) extensions – making it a Windows “bug” after all. Microsoft has a long history of blaming other companies’ programmers when third-party software suddenly stops working with Windows. I’m cynical enough to suspect that the _real_ source of the bugs is on the other side of the fence… ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/29 "2001-10-17T20:11:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > \*\*I don’t see how the integration of Windows and IE is a problem. If you don’t like IE, you don’t have to remove it before installing another browser. > > > [@](#): > > > > Also, I believe that MS also forced computer companies to NOT put Netscape on their machines when selling them. > > Now that, OTOH, is unacceptable. \*\* Also not true. What they said was: “You put a netscape icon on the desktop, but you you may NOT REMOVE the IE icon.” MS has NEVER prohibited PC manufacturers from bundling Netscape. They only prohibited them from removing IE. The customer may remove either icon once they have the PC in their hands. Now in terms of MARKETING, they have some exclusive marketing deals. “If we give you money to help market your PC’s, you may not promote Netscape on the main page of your Web site or the same page as the PC”. Was typical. The court of appeals ruled this to be illegal. tj ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/30 "2001-10-17T20:29:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\* > MS has NEVER prohibited PC manufacturers from bundling Netscape. They only prohibited them from removing IE. > \*\* Wrong. Microsoft told Compaq that they’d double Compaq’s license fee for Windows if they bundled Netscape. Compaq didn’t bundle Netscape. The windows license fee is around 10% of the cost of a PC these days; doubling that fee cripples a product on the market. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/31 "2001-10-17T20:56:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > **However…** In Apple’s own specs for QuickTime Digital Video File Formats,_none_ of those three “improperly supported” filename extensions is actually a valid Quicktime filename extension at all. No one is 100% certain, but it seems like the “rogue extensions” were used by Windows when saving Quicktime media off the internet, which then failed to play because they had illegal (according to Apple’s specs) extensions – making it a Windows “bug” after all. In HTML the file names (including extensions) are specified by the web site that supplies the data. These extensions ARE common ones on the Windows platform and have been for years. What Apple has to say about approved extensions is irrelevant, people **use** these or the web sites woudn’t be serving up data with those names. It is Apple’s fault if they didn’t support the extensions that people actually use. (and Web designers for using non-apple-approved extensions, I suppose). MS had nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > Microsoft has a long history of blaming other companies’ programmers when third-party software suddenly stops working with Windows. I’m cynical enough to suspect that the _real_ source of the bugs is on the other side of the fence… And programmers have a long history of blaming MS for their own mistakes. So? Finger pointing is ubiquitous. You wouldn’t **believe** the shit that Lotus 1.2.3. did in their code. The actually reverse-engineered DOS and then grabbed memory from some known offset to look at undocumented internal flags. When those flags moved, MS went and ‘faked’ the flags that Lotus was looking for so that it still worked. I happen to know that Windows95 had 100’s of hacks for no other purpose than to keep 3rd party products compatible. Did you know that if you call GlobalUnlock() and pass it the letter ‘M’ that it will quietly ignore the call without either crashing or returning an error? Guess why… We delayed shipping Win95 for nearly 5 months after it was done so that we could put in hacks to make broken 3rd party apps continue to work. Nearly all of these were bugs in the apps that just happened to be benign in Win31 (like the Unlock ‘M’ thing). I personally did a patch for “Monty Python’s complete waste of time”, and it WASN’T because I cared one way or the other about that product. It was assigned to me. (It was a cool product though) The Adobe Font techology actually PATCHED the core Windows drawing primative DLL in Win31 in order to install. MS had an engineer whose ONLY JOB for 4 months was to hack the GDI so that the Adobe font technology still worked. This involved creating fake assembly language signatures that Adobe was searching for, then then periodially querying them to see if they had been patched. When they were patched, the patches were fixed up so that they went to the correct places. So don’t tell me that MS intentionally breaks competitors products. I know better. The worse you can truthfully say is that they don’t always _fix_ their competitors bugs. tj ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/32 "2001-10-17T21:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > > \*\* > > MS has NEVER prohibited PC manufacturers from bundling Netscape. They only prohibited them from removing IE. > > \*\* > > Wrong. > > Microsoft told Compaq that they’d double Compaq’s license fee for Windows if they bundled Netscape. Compaq didn’t bundle Netscape. The windows license fee is around 10% of the cost of a PC these days; doubling that fee cripples a product on the market. \*\* cite? ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/33 "2001-10-17T21:14:43Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by rjung \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > If you’re referring to the “broken Quicktime” incident that popped up during the antitrust trial itself, it _did_ turn out to be Microsoft finangling with the system. > \*\* No, I am referring to a very recent incident that occurred only a couple months ago. Note that I said MS has continued its predatory monopolistic behavior SINCE the verdict, and this was my example. Microsoft is doing everything it can to kill Quicktime. RealPlayer will be next. But that Quicktime “knife the baby” incident was probably the clincher in the trial, it was the smoking gun that proved MS’s predatory tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/34 "2001-10-18T00:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chas.E \* > \*\*Recently MS released an update to Internet Explorer for Windows. It had only one major feature: it broke Apple’s Quicktime. Every Windows + Quicktime user who installed the update suddenly discovered that they could no longer access any online videos posted with Quicktime. MS made no announcement beforehand that this would happen, it was a complete surprise that this update would cause problems with QT. The IE update cannot be uninstalled and there is no way to revert to a lower version. There are two solutions to this problem: > \*\* Uh-huh. I get new versions of IE usually the week they come out and I’ve never had a problem playing QT movies. Not once from 5.0 through (checks)6.0 and all versions in-between. I do updates for the computers at work, downloading new versions and updates for about 45 computers. Quicktime still works on them (they’re currently all on 5.5). No-one I know has a problem with QT movies. How 'bout a cite. Or two. Or is your source a secret again (“two aging hippies”)? :rolleyes: Fenris, eagerly waiting to find out why he hasn’t, in actuality, been watching QT movies all these years. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/35 "2001-10-18T00:29:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \*\*\* > cite? \*\* I was mistaken in my claim that Microsoft threatened to double Compaq’s licencing fees if they bundled Navigator. The following cites should clarify what really happened: > [@](#): > > _from [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1431298.html](http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1431298.html)_\*\* > In 1995 and early 1996, Compaq removed the MSN icon from the desktop of its consumer PC and replaced it with an icon for America Online’s Internet service. The company also removed the icon for Internet Explorer in favor of Netscape Navigator. Microsoft sent a letter on May 31, 1996, to the company threatening to terminate Compaq’s Windows 95 license. Compaq returned to its original desktop setting the next month. > \*\* > [@](#): > > _from [http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2000/01/p22.asp](http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2000/01/p22.asp)_\*\* > Compaq: In 1996, Compaq planned to ship some PCs without the screen icons for Internet Explorer and Microsoft Network. After months of negotiations, Microsoft threatened to cancel Compaq’s license to distribute Windows 95. Faced with the virtual destruction of its business, Compaq relented. The reward was one of the most favorable pricing arrangements for Windows. > \*\* > [@](#): > > _from [http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1003-200-334436,00.html](http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1003-200-334436,00.html)_\*\* > After being sued a year ago, Microsoft admitted that it threatened to cancel Compaq’s valuable Windows license if the company followed through with plans to take the Internet Explorer icon off the machines it sold. To this day, Compaq is still not permitted to replace Microsoft’s browser icon with one from Netscape or any other company. > \*\* And here’s a freebie, straight from Jackson’s findings of fact: > [@](#): > > _from [http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm](http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm)_\*\* > Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions “have not been going well at all.” One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that “Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install.” Gates then reported that he had already called Apple’s CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask “how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . .” > \*\* ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/36 "2001-10-18T00:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\* > Uh-huh. > > How 'bout a cite. Or two. Or is your source a secret again (“two aging hippies”)? :rolleyes: > \*\* How about a witness? This happened to my brother. The upgrade from IE 5.0 to 5.5 broke Quicktime. It no longer worked as a plugin. The reason for this is that Microsoft, in IE 6, dropped support for plugins, an architecture developed by Netscape, in favor of their ActiveX architecture. Then, without warning, they included the change in architecture in 5.5, except Quicktime was the only plugin that stopped functioning. Strange, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/37 "2001-10-18T00:56:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\*How about a witness? This happened to my brother. The upgrade from IE 5.0 to 5.5 broke Quicktime. It no longer worked as a plugin. > > The reason for this is that Microsoft, in IE 6, dropped support for plugins, an architecture developed by Netscape, in favor of their ActiveX architecture. Then, without warning, they included the change in architecture in 5.5, except Quicktime was the only plugin that stopped functioning. > \*\* Ok, you’ve got your brother, I’ve got about 60 computers that are somewhere between 5.0 and 6.0 and all points in between where Quicktime _does_ work. I believe you about your brother. But the problem is that both of us are using anecdotal evidence and that’s not the way to prove a charge like this. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/38 "2001-10-18T03:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\*Ok, you’ve got your brother, I’ve got about 60 computers that are somewhere between 5.0 and 6.0 and all points in between where Quicktime _does_ work. > \*\* If your QT files work OK on Windows IE 5.5sp2 or higher, then you are fortunate to be accessing sites that have already modified their code to conform to MS’s new demands. Many sites moved immediately to repair the damage. If you want another cite, the authoritative Macintouch site has a special report on the issue. [http://www.macintouch.com/netscapepluginapi.html](http://www.macintouch.com/netscapepluginapi.html) Or perhaps a Robert Cringely article will be of interest: > **[Retired Site | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/retired-site/)** > > This Content is No Longer Available Or perhaps the official announcement from Apple would be the best source: [http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/compatibility.html](http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/compatibility.html) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/39 "2001-10-18T05:10:58Z")
:rolleyes: Every good designer I’ve met would tell you right quick you want to make sure your code is compatible with both the \ and \ tags. I’ve always done it in my sites. Much similar to the \ tag, eh? Too bad we can’t pin frames on MS. Or JavaScript pop-up windows and Java viruses. Bad HTML coding is not MS’s fault either. Christ. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@Marcus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715/40 "2001-10-18T11:46:27Z")
**Tejota** , do you or did you work for Microsoft? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-anti-trust/87715.md?page=3)