CNBC - Is Microsoft Toast?
Rex Ballard
Microsoft will be posting their quarterly reports tonight. The
Industry pundits are all over it.
The headline on the screen is - Is Microsoft Toast?
On the PC front, Vista sales are doing horribly. Dell has openly
reported that most of their customers are ordering their PCs with
Windows XP instead of Vista. Other vendors have hinted similar
patterns. Apple's strength is Microsoft's weakness. Apple's very
strong sales, and Apple's inability to keep up with demand for iMacs
and iBooks is making it very clear that Microsoft has "a little
problem" - OEMs buy Windows becuase Windows sells their PCs. If
Windows doesn't generate the expected increase in sales, OEMs may
start looking for alternatives. Microsoft is losing negotiating
leverage and "good will", which could have a negative impact on future
sales and future ability to maintain monopoly control over the OEM
distribution channel.
Office 2007 - getting really intense pressure from alternatives.
People don't want to upgrade and they don't want pay for upgrades they
don't need. MS-Office software is transferable from PC to PC.
Pressure from OpenOffice is being combined with the willingness to
stick with Office 2000 and Office XP - and no need to upgrade. The
next upgrade might be to OpenOffice or another ODF compatible Office
suite. Many corporations have stopped their recurring payment support
plans and have opted to convert their licenses to streight ownership,
with ability to transfer/install under volume managed license
agreement. Most corporate sites have had so many unpleasant suprises
with Microsoft's automated upgrades, which seem to have a bad habit of
damaging or disabling 3rd party software considered critical to
corporate users - that they have adopted a policy of filtering them
and doing their own SMS management.
Game Machines - Nintendo WII has killed demand for XBox/360. The
innovative remote and human interaces have proven to be more popular
with users than a game machine that can only be appreciated on a $3000
HDTV display (HDTV prices are coming down, but not enough to promote
hundreds of millions of XBox/360 machines).
Services - This is the one bright shining star. Microsoft is co-owner
of a number of services and sites which generate substantial
commissions. Ironically, most of these sites have had to give up
their "Windows IE Only" web interfaces, Microsoft can't afford to turn
away firefox readers any more than any other site that generates
revenue via the Web.
Return on investments - Microsoft has a huge hoard of cash "and
equivelants". An estimated $30 billion in assets. Most of this money
seems to have been invested very effectively, even if not always in
the tech industry. It seems that Microsoft may have made some good
profits on Energy company windfalls. This division of the company is
patterned after Berkshire Hathaway. It looks like Microsoft may have
also channeled funds through some holding companies to try and reduce
the speculation as they build positions in new companies.
Even insider activity doesn't look promising. Insiders seem to have
accelerated their sales of stock positions.
Unfortunately, the current stock price is also just over 29 - a bit
too high for any stock buyback programs.
Microsoft could announce a dividend pay-out from it's cash horde, but
this might be a bit difficult to explain if their profits, revenues,
and sales are down.
Not good news for Microsoft investors.
On the other hand, it beats what's happening to Oil, Natural Gas, and
Housing related stocks right now.
John Locke
wrote:
>Note the date - April 26.
>Microsoft will be posting their quarterly reports tonight. The
>Industry pundits are all over it.
>The headline on the screen is - Is Microsoft Toast?
>
I just got back from doing some networking for an elderly
couple. Very non-tech people. As I was leaving, they asked me
what 's wrong with Microsoft ? "We've been hearing bad things about
their new Vista."
If these people are aware of problems with Microsoft, then you know
there's something big brewing in the wind.
Roy Schestowitz
Yes, they haven't vision (Vista). The only visibility on on stickers and
desktop machines which, unlike servers, can give the impression that Windows
is everywhere (never mind server and devices).
Microsoft's financial results were arranged in such a way so that they would
appear positive (beating expectations). This was pointed out by various
analysts last week (I quickly browse through about 30 financial items on
Microsoft per day, so I saw this).
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Ballmer O/S - so furious it may crash
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 481800k used, 32680k free, 4496k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
DFS
> I just got back from doing some networking for an elderly
> couple. Very non-tech people. As I was leaving, they asked me
> what 's wrong with Microsoft ? "We've been hearing bad things about
> their new Vista."
>
> If these people are aware of problems with Microsoft, then you know
> there's something big brewing in the wind.
Yep, something big alright - another quarter of huge income and earnings
growth. But never mind that - Linux won and MS is dying.
btw, what did those people say about Ubuntu 7.04? RHEL 5.0? Debian 4.0?
Nothing?!?!
John Bailo
> Linux won and MS is dying.
Yes, that's about it.
Rex Ballard
> John Locke wrote:
> > I just got back from doing some networking for an elderly
> > couple. Very non-tech people. As I was leaving, they asked me
> > what 's wrong with Microsoft ? "We've been hearing bad things about
> > their new Vista."
>
> > If these people are aware of problems with Microsoft, then you know
> > there's something big brewing in the wind.
>
> Yep, something big alright - another quarter of huge income and earnings
> growth. But never mind that - Linux won and MS is dying.
Interesting numbers, especially the EDGAR 10-Q filing.
Look at
Millions - 2007 2006
Unearned Revenue 4551 3670
Recognition of unearned income 6121 3615
Accounts Receivable 1455 972
In effect, Microsoft purchased their own product using their
cash reserves.
Not that total cash, equivalents, and short-term investments went
from $34,161-M in 2006 to $28,236-M in 2007.
Total current liabilities went down, but Stocholder's equity less
liability
actually DROPPED $4 Billion!
Put really simply, Microsoft purchased about $4 billion worth of it's
own
product. Sure, they did it "legally" by putting the inventory into
the hands
of their customers, but then they financed it with their own capital.
This works really well with the support contracts.
> btw, what did those people say about Ubuntu 7.04? RHEL 5.0? Debian 4.0?
> Nothing?!?!
They might cover Red Hat for about 30 seconds after their quarterly
reports are filed.
The other companies are not publicly held - therefore not usually
covered by CNBC.
Microsoft also paid $550 million for Softricity, who provides
virtualization technologies.
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two092105-story03.html
About $433 million was written off as goodwill. Simply put, Microsoft
paid over 1/2 billion
just to choke out a provider who was creating the framework to put
Linux and Windows on
the same desktop. The "GoodWill" writeoff pretty much means that
Microsoft will bury
the technology.http://www.itjungle.com/two/two092105-story03.html
And Microsoft Business Division bought $2.68 Billion worth of good
will too. Maybe they
decided to waive the increases on new contracts that included free
upgrades to Vista?
Microsoft probably didn't have to pull the whole $4.39 billion out of
it's own pocket,
to realize an increase. After all, they only claim a $2.47 billion
increase in client license revenue.
This represents a blend of Windows (Vista/XP) and Office (XP/2007) -
which probably includes
people, like me, who wanted XP which works well with VMWare on Linux
and is licensed for it,
before the only option was Vista Home Basic, which is VM hostile, and
has license restrictions on virtualization.
Appearantly, even Microsoft can't afford it's own servers. The Online
Services business lost
$205 Million this quarter, It's lost $486 million in the 9 months
ended March 31 2007.
Not a glowing endorsement, if you know what I mean.
Normally, investors buy on the rumor, and sell on the news. Ballmer
had to knock their socks off
with top-line numbers, and hide the uglies deep in the bowels of the
detail reports.
Even today, the positive remarks about Microsoft's earnings were more
guarded. Remarks from Dell
didn't help much either.
Larry Qualig
> On Apr 26, 10:37 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> > John Locke wrote:
> > > I just got back from doing some networking for an elderly
> > > couple. Very non-tech people. As I was leaving, they asked me
> > > what 's wrong with Microsoft ? "We've been hearing bad things about
> > > their new Vista."
>
> > > If these people are aware of problems with Microsoft, then you know
> > > there's something big brewing in the wind.
>
> > Yep, something big alright - another quarter of huge income and earnings
> > growth. But never mind that - Linux won and MS is dying.
>
> Interesting numbers, especially the EDGAR 10-Q filing.
> Look at
> Millions - 2007 2006
> Unearned Revenue 4551 3670
> Recognition of unearned income 6121 3615
> Accounts Receivable 1455 972
>
> In effect, Microsoft purchased their own product using their
> cash reserves.
And you can prove this how????
> Not that total cash, equivalents, and short-term investments went
> from $34,161-M in 2006 to $28,236-M in 2007.
>
> Total current liabilities went down, but Stocholder's equity less
> liability
> actually DROPPED $4 Billion!
>
> Put really simply, Microsoft purchased about $4 billion worth of it's
> own
> product. Sure, they did it "legally" by putting the inventory into
> the hands
> of their customers, but then they financed it with their own capital.
> This works really well with the support contracts.
More fables, tall-stories, hallucinations and wild speculation from
Rex. All of these secret plans and consipiracies that nobody else in
the world knows about other than Rex.
So unlike every other time he's made ridiculous and often laughable
claims I'm sure Rex has proof this time, Right?
> > btw, what did those people say about Ubuntu 7.04? RHEL 5.0? Debian 4.0?
> > Nothing?!?!
>
> They might cover Red Hat for about 30 seconds after their quarterly
> reports are filed.
> The other companies are not publicly held - therefore not usually
> covered by CNBC.
>
> Microsoft also paid $550 million for Softricity, who provides
> virtualization technologies.http://www.itjungle.com/two/two092105-story03.html
>
> About $433 million was written off as goodwill. Simply put, Microsoft
> paid over 1/2 billion
> just to choke out a provider who was creating the framework to put
> Linux and Windows on
> the same desktop. The "GoodWill" writeoff pretty much means that
> Microsoft will bury
> the technology.http://www.itjungle.com/two/two092105-story03.html
>
> And Microsoft Business Division bought $2.68 Billion worth of good
> will too. Maybe they
> decided to waive the increases on new contracts that included free
> upgrades to Vista?
And maybe you're once again making up stuff as you ramble along?
> Microsoft probably didn't have to pull the whole $4.39 billion out of
> it's own pocket,
> to realize an increase. After all, they only claim a $2.47 billion
> increase in client license revenue.
> This represents a blend of Windows (Vista/XP) and Office (XP/2007) -
> which probably includes
> people, like me, who wanted XP which works well with VMWare on Linux
> and is licensed for it,
> before the only option was Vista Home Basic, which is VM hostile, and
> has license restrictions on virtualization.
>
> Appearantly, even Microsoft can't afford it's own servers. The Online
> Services business lost
> $205 Million this quarter, It's lost $486 million in the 9 months
> ended March 31 2007.
> Not a glowing endorsement, if you know what I mean.
>
> Normally, investors buy on the rumor, and sell on the news. Ballmer
> had to knock their socks off
> with top-line numbers, and hide the uglies deep in the bowels of the
> detail reports.
And you're the only one in the world who's smart enough to uncover
this.
> Even today, the positive remarks about Microsoft's earnings were more
> guarded. Remarks from Dell
> didn't help much either.
Yawn....
Rex Ballard
> On Apr 27, 4:26 pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 10:37 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yep, something big alright - another quarter of huge income and earnings
> > > growth. But never mind that - Linux won and MS is dying.
>
> > Interesting numbers, especially the EDGAR 10-Q filing.
> > Look at
> > Millions - 2007 2006
> > Unearned Revenue 4551 3670
> > Recognition of unearned income 6121 3615
> > Accounts Receivable 1455 972
>
> > In effect, Microsoft purchased their own product using their
> > cash reserves.
>
> And you can prove this how????
the financial reports, and almost every time, there was something
fishy going on with the finances. It's very hard to hide
embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, or securities fraud in
financial statements for very long.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the top management is fully aware
of what's going on, but it often points to SOMEONE who is "cooking the
books".
There are some fishy numbers in Microsoft's financial report.
Microsoft has a huge cash
reserve which it can use to weather bad quarters. This makes it
possible to finance huge orders by corporate customers and report them
on the books as revenue. It's not necessarily illegal, but it can be
cause for alarm.
On the plus side, Microsoft could drop $4 billion/quarter for about 5
quarters and still maintain a positive net worth. This is much better
than the "dot-com" fiasco of 1999-2000 where web sites were using
equity raised in IPOs to purchase more advertizing in other sites who
purchased more ads on their sites..
The problem for investors is that having two or more companies
"pressing each other's pants" - and charging each other for the
service can create a misleading illusion of profit and/or growth.
> > Note that total cash, equivalents, and short-term investments went
> > from $34,161-M in 2006 to $28,236-M in 2007.
>
> > Total current liabilities went down, but Stocholder's equity less
> > liability
> > actually DROPPED $4 Billion!
>
> > Put really simply, Microsoft purchased about $4 billion worth of it's
> > own
> > product. Sure, they did it "legally" by putting the inventory into
> > the hands
> > of their customers, but then they financed it with their own capital.
> > This works really well with the support contracts.
>
> More fables, tall-stories, hallucinations and wild speculation from
> Rex. All of these secret plans and consipiracies that nobody else in
> the world knows about other than Rex.
The actual numbers were provided by Microsoft themselves, in their
federally regulated
EDGAR filing. I provided the link in the previous post.
The explanations for the numbers are just one possible explanation.
There are others
that would be much more illegal and much more of a problem for
investors and executives of Microsoft.
There are clearly some "red flags" in this SEC 10-Q filing. It
certainly bears further
investigation. Perhaps there is another completely legal
explanation. I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Nedd Ludd
"Rex Ballard" <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177782291.2...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
:
: The actual numbers were provided by Microsoft themselves, in their
: federally regulated
: EDGAR filing. I provided the link in the previous post.
:
: The explanations for the numbers are just one possible explanation.
: There are others
: that would be much more illegal and much more of a problem for
: investors and executives of Microsoft.
:
: There are clearly some "red flags" in this SEC 10-Q filing. It
: certainly bears further
: investigation. Perhaps there is another completely legal
: explanation. I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
You said there were some 'red flag'. Why don't you tell us what those 'red
flags' are?
You claimed to be the expert. Show us your proof that MSFT did something
illegal.
Please could someone who questions MSFT's financial filings show me the
proof they did something illegal? Where is the proof?
Rex Ballard
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177782291.2...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : The actual numbers were provided by Microsoft themselves, in their
> : federally regulated
> : EDGAR filing. I provided the link in the previous post.
> :
> : The explanations for the numbers are just one possible explanation.
> : There are others
> : that would be much more illegal and much more of a problem for
> : investors and executives of Microsoft.
> :
> : There are clearly some "red flags" in this SEC 10-Q filing. It
> : certainly bears further
> : investigation. Perhaps there is another completely legal
> : explanation. I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
>
> You said there were some 'red flag'.
> Why don't you tell us what those 'red flags' are?
I listed the "red flags" in my previous posts. The biggest concern
being
the reduction of "cash and equivalents" which appears to be similar to
the "growth" reported in the high profile numbers.
> You claimed to be the expert.
> Show us your proof that MSFT did something illegal.
There is a very thin line between legal and illegal. It's quite
possible that Microsoft
walked very very close to that line, but their $2 billion/year legal
team would have
mapped out their defense of the legality of activities that would land
most other businessmen
in federal prison.
The question of exactly WHAT Microsoft did is not as clear in the
numbers. There could be
reciprocal agreements, but as long as the contracts don't cite each
other, It's technically legal.
There could be channel stuffing, but again, so long as the documents
don't require the client
to accept shipments prior to when they are needed, it's technically
legal. If the customer decides
that - for an additional 5% discount, they can get 1/2 the year's
requirements in advance, they
might opt to do this, even though the ordered licenses won't actually
be shipped in PCs until the
following quarters. Microsoft make have even offerred non-monetary
terms, such as the ability
to install either XP or Vista - if they pre-ordered them as "Vista"
licenses.
This could be a legitimate choice of the OEMs as well, who may want to
absorb the cost of the licenses
during more profitable January-March quarters rather than getting
"stuck" in the "June-August" months.
> Please could someone who questions MSFT's financial filings show me the
> proof they did something illegal? Where is the proof?
What I said was that there were "Red Flags" indicating that the audit
should be more rigorous than usual.
It's up to the auditors, regulators, and judges to determine whether
questionable irregularities in cash flow
are just accomodating the needs of the customers (OEMs and
Corporations), or whether Microsoft may have
been engaging in channel stuffing, reciprocal agreements, or other
activities which are counter to GAAP principles.
Microsoft has already declared that it had to restate previous quarter
numbers, which were then reflected in the current
quarter numbers. Again, it appears that Microsoft is trying to make
it look like "Vista" sales are better than they
actually are. SEC regulations prevent them from stating that they
shipped xx million Vista licenses if they weren't
actually Vista licences. They can tell the press anything they want,
and it's the job of good reporters to do the research and determine if
false statements were made to the press, or if the facts contradict
the public statements. Statements made in an SEC 10-Q filing, on the
other hand, MUST be factually accurate.
During previous releases of Windows, Microsoft has made declarations
specific to the sales of the related release.
The absence of such positive statements in the SEC filings, combined
with previous statements to the investor community, by Steve Ballmer,
indicate that VISTA sales are falling far below expectitions.
Microsoft may be selling lots of WINDOWS licenses, which permit the
OEM to install EITHER XP or Vista. Statements by OEMs, including Dell
and HP, indicate that most of the machines they are selling are being
sold with XP. Clearly NOT a good sign for Vista.
Perhaps Microsoft will repackage Windows 2003 Server or "Longhorn"
server, or begin to offer a VM specific version of Windows, possibly
even at a higher price than Vista in "Native" mode, and without DRM
products. Ironically, Microsoft could make more profit selling a
product which OEMs can install to enable Linux users to run "Windows",
than they could selling "Windows" itself in native mode. The best
part is that they could make more profit as well. After all, if they
don't have to support thousands of different hardware configurations
and combinations, the support program can be much cheaper, and more
profitable.
.
Many companies, including IBM, have discovered that the best profits
can be made, not from an "All OSS" or "All Proprietary" solution, but
rather from a "Hybrid" solution combining both OSS and corporate
components into a corporate solution.
Nedd Ludd
: On Apr 28, 10:32 pm, "Nedd Ludd" <NeddL...@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: > Show us your proof that MSFT did something illegal.
:
: There is a very thin line between legal and illegal. It's quite
:
: <blah blah blah>
I asked for proof and not an endless rant.
Please post proof MS did something illegal or shut up about it.
(probably both options are impossible for Ballard)
The Ghost In The Machine
<Nedd...@comcast.net>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:42:55 -0400
<O8CdnaHNzckQyKvb...@comcast.com>:
No proof available. Evidence suggesting wrongdoing beyond
a reasonable doubt, maybe, and that only if one believes
The Honorable Thomas Jackson's findings, which have been
disputed in the appeals process (which AFAIK is ongoing).
Of course since The Honorable Jackson is a judge, albeit a
rather angry one at times, there's probably a better chance
of him being right than, say, me, given that he presided
over the case. However, a fair number of cases are thrown out
because of procedural missteps by any of the participants.
A copy of the original order appears to be at
http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
And of course they're all mostly moot anyway, except
for the fact that Microsoft is now a $45B-$50B/year company.
Who uses IE3 anymore? Win3.11?
Thought not.
So define "proof" in this context. I can, of course,
prove that N (the set of all natural numbers [*]) is
infinite in a mathematical context, given the right
axioms and certain definitions of "infinite". This is
highly different from "proof" in a court of law, and it
may depend on the action type; civil and criminal findings
run under different threshold criteria, as we all know (or
should know) in the case of Orenthal James "O.J." Simpson,
who was found innocent but financially liable (by two
different judgements) of murdering Nichole Simpson nee Brown
and Ronald Goldman.
And then there's the issue of reparations. Even if
Microsoft were found guilty, there is the possibility
that *nothing need be done about it*, except to note
it and to put systems in place that attempt to prohibit
a repetition of the illegal act by the same or another
vendor. Such was, presumably, the case for some judgements
during the antitrust era; I'd frankly have to look.
EU is trying to get into the act but I smell a "setaside
because of jurisdiction" in the very near future.
Good luck EU; you'll need it. If they're really lucky
the US government will be forced to pay up. (That could
get messy.)
At this very very late date the only thing that might
reasonably be expected to stop Microsoft is Microsoft
shooting themselves in the foot, which they do reasonably
well (and spectacularly well in the case of Microsoft BOB,
and possibly Windows Vista as well).
The court of public opinion is not always the most forgiving. :-)
[*] it may or may not contain 0, depending on American or
European usage -- an issue only for the definition of
addition if one uses, say, Peano's Axioms, to get
things started.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
amicus_curious
"Nedd Ludd" <Nedd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C_udnSUI96kamanb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Please could someone who questions MSFT's financial filings show me the
> proof they did something illegal? Where is the proof?
>
>
I think you are asking for evidence, but there is none. What the antis have
instead is an inference gained from their certain knowledge that Microsoft
is on a sharp decline as evidenced by Dell asking customers what they want
in a web survey. Since MS is thus declining, the fact that their financials
are showing either significant or substantial gains (depending on how you
want to view the numbers) there must be an ongoing illegal act to account
for it. There is no other way to explain how Microsoft is showing improved
revenues and profits and also market share increases.
amicus_curious
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:5d3ig4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> A copy of the original order appears to be at
>
> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
>
> And of course they're all mostly moot anyway, except
> for the fact that Microsoft is now a $45B-$50B/year company.
> Who uses IE3 anymore? Win3.11?
>
Court of Appeals reversed or remanded all the meaningful Jackson findings of
law that you reference. Jackson is seen to be somewhat of a judicial bufoon
in regard to his application of the law and was also found to be in
violation of numerous ethical canons due to his contemporaneous interviews
with the press expressing his prejudgement while the case was still in
litigation. That doesn't sound so bad if you are on the anti-MS side of the
aisle, but it is big down at the courthouse.
> Thought not.
>
> So define "proof" in this context. I can, of course,
> prove that N (the set of all natural numbers [*]) is
> infinite in a mathematical context, given the right
> axioms and certain definitions of "infinite". This is
> highly different from "proof" in a court of law, and it
> may depend on the action type; civil and criminal findings
> run under different threshold criteria, as we all know (or
> should know) in the case of Orenthal James "O.J." Simpson,
> who was found innocent but financially liable (by two
> different judgements) of murdering Nichole Simpson nee Brown
> and Ronald Goldman.
>
An interesting correlation here was that Ito and Jackson were both seen to
be dozing a lot during proceedings, perhaps having long since come to a
decision about the case and not wanting any new facts to spoil their
thoughts. Ito wasn't so obtuse as to be having magazine articles being
written before the verdict was rendered, though.
> And then there's the issue of reparations. Even if
> Microsoft were found guilty, there is the possibility
> that *nothing need be done about it*, except to note
> it and to put systems in place that attempt to prohibit
> a repetition of the illegal act by the same or another
> vendor. Such was, presumably, the case for some judgements
> during the antitrust era; I'd frankly have to look.
>
Well that was the case with the DOJ/States charges. No exclusive dealing,
no leveraging of monopoly power, no anticompetitive bundling of products,
and only ineffective attempts to maintain monopoly power. The appeals have
long run out in Microsoft's favor and you can really get over this case on
these facts, the great majority of which were deemed legal practices by the
various courts and judges involved. The net net was a settlement and ruling
that establish oversight committees to ensure that MS stayed legal and MS'
agreeing to cover the tab for the shysters.
> EU is trying to get into the act but I smell a "setaside
> because of jurisdiction" in the very near future.
> Good luck EU; you'll need it. If they're really lucky
> the US government will be forced to pay up. (That could
> get messy.)
>
> At this very very late date the only thing that might
> reasonably be expected to stop Microsoft is Microsoft
> shooting themselves in the foot, which they do reasonably
> well (and spectacularly well in the case of Microsoft BOB,
> and possibly Windows Vista as well).
>
> The court of public opinion is not always the most forgiving. :-)
>
Well the EU issues are essential anticompetitive behavior in regard to the
music player which was causing a problem for anyone else trying to make
money from music players on PCs, notably RealNetworks and Apple. Also in
regard to Windows servers out performing Unix servers in heterogeneous
networks due to Microsoft using some sneaky, non-standard techniques that
were not available to Sun and others. Somehow or the other this entitles
the EU to collect the odd billion or so, which seems to go into the EU
coffers and does not go to the various victims of the Microsoft crime
machine. Seems somewhat like a conflict of interest, but what can anyone
do?
Doug Mentohl
translation:
There iz uh distinction between “proof” an' “evidence”. In it gives
context here, I th'o't already iz asking fo' evidence, but dere iz none.
What gives antis gots instead iz an inference gained from they certain
knowledge dat Microsoft iz on uh sharp declines ace evidenced by Dell
asking customers what dey wants in uh Web survey. Since MS iz thus
declining, gives fact dat they financials iz showing to either
significant or substantial gains (depending on how already wants ta view
gives numbers) dere mus' be an ongoing illegal act ta account fo' it.
There iz nahh to other way ta explain how Microsoft iz showing improved
revenues an' profits an' also market share increases Ya' dig?
Doug Mentohl
translated for clarity:
Moodness diz loong from dere here case jet. Da District o Colombia court
o' assizes o pleazes waived or remanded all dere meanenfull Jackass
discoverees o law dat ya referenzez. Jackass 'on iz seen TA iz uh little
o uh donevva buffoon (wid muh beeotch) in da respect TA, which its ta
application all ye damn hood ratz. on dere o found law wuz also TA ta be
injury o dere in da numerous ethical cannons (what the fuck sup now?) o'
suitable TA its simultaneous interviews wiff press which expresses its
prejudgement during dere case wuz still in da law case - an don't make
me pull mah gat!
This bad ones don o' da clay/tone so if ya iz on dere anti- ms lateral o
dere course, but it iz large descent at dere da court and don ever make
me come ovah there bitch.. An interesting interrelation wuz dat here Ito
at Jackass wuz both seen TA döst uh lot during da procedures, possibly
arrives havin fo' uh long tyme TA uh decision over dere case, which do
not wish her ta new facts TA dirt thoughts. Ito wuz not thus blunt, as
TA havin da magazine article its, which iz written dere 'transferred
bfoe pronouncement o' judgement wuz. Sources dat wuz dere case wiff dere
DOJ/States loadings out. No exclusive treating, nahh admission o'
outside fund o monopoly energy, nahh Antikonkurrenzzusammenrolleno o'
products, ta only unsuccessful attempts TA maintain monopoly energy.
The resemblances ta uh jackass gots (just like ma mammy), which iz
really git in uberdis here long-term on out Microsoft'sfavor ya bawx,
cover dere large majority o, which wuz certified insane (sho 'nuff)
practice meant through dere different courts at the judges spliff
included on deez facts. Uh regulation ta governing dat supervision
committees manufacture da Nettonettowuz, da TA approving shysters fo
projection/lead cover TA dat dere there da ms remained certified at ms
ta guarantee.
Well-being expenditures fo' European Union iz substantial big jimmy in
da respect TA pounding players, whom wuz, uh da problem causes fo fo'
brothas TA otherwise trying, money o' da pounding players on PC form,
primarily numner one (just like mammy) at Apple dere there. Also respect
TA Windows in da operators, which Unixbender an dat boil on mah ass
nets in da suitable TA Microsoft dat out usin somethin' sneaky,
non--standard techniques an don't make me pull mah gat!
Oda one somehow or dere permits dis ta European Union TA collects dere
odd here billion, or in such uh way, which seems TA jet on in dere
European Union Coffers, different victims o do not squirt ya'll is mad
stupid te dere Microsoft crime machine. Does uh little seem like uh
conflict o interest, but which can do someone? blood ulcer dat um tiny
jimmy o' ASS, peep this shit.
amicus_curious
"Doug Mentohl" <doug_m...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:f17vna$k14$1...@news.datemas.de...
> on 01/05/07 18:18 amicus_curious wrote:
>
> translated for clarity:
>
advocates? I would never have known.
Peter Köhlmann
It served a purpose: It shows what kind of gibberish you post regularly.
You are simply a dishonest, lying twit, Bill Weisgerber
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
amicus_curious
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:f187k2$6hj$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
amicus_curious
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:f187k2$6hj$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>>
>> "Doug Mentohl" <doug_m...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
>> news:f17vna$k14$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> on 01/05/07 18:18 amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> translated for clarity:
>>>
>> Are you certain that is the kind of language that appears clearer to
>> Linux
>> advocates? I would never have known.
>
> It served a purpose: It shows what kind of gibberish you post regularly.
> You are simply a dishonest, lying twit, Bill Weisgerber
> --
waste on trivia. Do you suppose that kind of think his main entertainment or
was his motorcycle in the shop being serviced all day?