> Who is this jerk - some kind of Microsoft paid flunky?
I read the judge's decision, and his claims are the following.
1. Because of the "application barrier to entry", no one can effectively
compete with Microsoft in the Intel/PC market OS, giving microsoft a
monopoly in this market.
This is bogus, because an OS designer can certainly support Microsoft's
APIs in addition to whatever native API he invents. Linux use is growing,
and as soon as a GUI that looks like Windows is perfected it will begin to
give Windows real competition. Applications will then follow.
If Windows cost $500 per machine, market forces would have already
produced a competing product. But since it doesn't, it is almost always
cheaper to use Windows than to write one of your own.
Windows has a monopoly because although it is a piece of shit, it is a
cheap piece of shit. That is the only reason it has a monopoly.
Until some altruistic person duplicates Windows functionality as
completely free open source, people will use Windows. If you don't like
that, start writing code.
2. Microsoft was mean to Netscape.
Boo Hoo.
3. Since Microsoft has a monopoly, bundling Internet Explorer with Windows
was illegal tying of products to crush competition.
This was claimed by the judge before, and reversed on appeal. Why Judge
Jackson is presuming to claim it again is anyone's guess.
No one is their right mind is going to seriously claim that the government
needs to start telling software vendors what features they may include in
each product they release.
It was clear from day one of this trial, that "the fix was in" to screw
Microsoft, and what the verdict would be.
I would be very surprised if Microsoft doesn't prevail on appeal.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
