🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.unix.questions Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> My point is that there CANNOT be a fair place to make the split, no
:> matter what definition the court tries to come up with.

: That depends how you define fair.  There is a pretty good arguement that 
: a technically logical place could not be found, but I'm not at all 
: convinced that a fair place could not be found in terms of legal equity, 
: especially given that the idea of a remedy is at least partially 
: punitive, which means that something that is harmful to Microsoft still 
: might be okay and even something harmful to society as a whole might be 
: okay assuming the harm isn't too great.  (This assumes that the idea of 
: splitting the company was an appropriate remedy at all, which I don't 
: happen to believe).


:    I showed
:> that by showing that it doesn't work in either of the two opposite
:> extremes (the actual defintion used would have to be somewhere between
:> the two, and would thus still have had this problem.)

: This doesn't follow logically.  Consider the case of medicine you need 
: to cure a fatal disease.  Too little and you die.  Too much and you 
: overdose and die.  The right amount and you're cured.

Bad analogy.  In my example, there was nothing you could use in
case A to differentiate into OS and App.  There was also nothing
you could use in case B to do it.  So anything that contains a
mix of the two will have the same problem, because you don't add
anything new by mixing them that you can use as a new criteria
to make the split on.