From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fb57f,9d00a7db22818139 X-Google-Attributes: gidfb57f,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d00a7db22818139 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 103cd7,892ace70630b33c7,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103cd7,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-27 13:24:37 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!logbridge.uoregon.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!208.184.7.66!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news.starband.net!twister1.starband.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Roger Schlafly" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,sci.crypt,talk.politics.crypto References: <983158039.27320.0.nnrp-08.9e98cc46@news.demon.co.uk> <3A9ADBAE.EFF0B8AC@multiweb.nl> <3A9B242E.D7D177A8@earthlink.net> <3A9BC5FA.FA89B58A@optonline.net> <3A9BF442.7E840E64@optonline.net> Subject: Re: On RC4 in C X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Message-ID: <%CUm6.223$xW5.106692696@twister1.starband.net> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:03:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.75.75.230 X-Complaints-To: abuse@starband.net X-Trace: twister1.starband.net 983307835 148.75.75.230 (Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:03:55 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:03:55 EST Organization: Starband Communications Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5324 sci.crypt:18343 talk.politics.crypto:1840 Date: 2001-02-27T21:03:55+00:00 List-Id: "William Hugh Murray" wrote in message news:3A9BF442.7E840E64@optonline.net... Getting off-topic here ... > I was with IBM when the DoJ was even more unhappy with their business practices > than they are with Microsoft's. There was never a final judgement in IBM's > case but my reading of history suggests that the issues are, for the most > part, moot. Moot now, yes. Not in the 1970s. > DoJ abandoned its requests for relief and IBM never achieved the > kind of dominance which the DoJ seemed to fear. Some have suggested that that > was because, if IBM ever dreamed of such dominance, it took its eye off the > ball while it battled the government. IBM used to have 70% of the computer biz. IBM did change its business practices significantly as the result of its various antitrust legal difficulties. Some people argue that the rise of Microsoft was only possible because IBM was restrained. > I await the final judgement of the > courts in the Microsoft case, though I might prefer a settlement. However the > battle now joined ends, I hope that MS is not guilty of such an error. However > it ends, I doubt seriously that it will make anybody, much less everybody, > happy with any, much less all, of Microsoft's business practices. (Does that > sentence scan?) On the other hand, I also doubt that, at least in the long run, > it will make any difference. Perhaps, but the MS lawsuit has already had the effect of curbing some MS business practices. Companies from AOL to RealNetworks have prospered as a result.