[PCWorld]

Post your comments for EC Wins New Ally in Latest Antitrust Case Against Microsoft here

[number6]

It's things like that commission that are distorting markets. Let the other browsers succeed on their own merit instead of trying to jump on the advantage that Microsoft built on its own.

[hawhite]

I am not certain that they can even constitute a market. What is the revenue stream associated with free browsers? Is it all based on web traffic, and associated advertising?

It seems very nebulous to claim harm when you can't prove real harm in concrete terms. I mean it would have to be more than a "I don't like them, because they're mean to me." reason.

I am sure they will create numbers to justify their case, but I just wonder if the numbers are real or imagined.

[flatrock19]

The vast majority of people purchase Windows by buying a PC with Windows loaded on it.
System vendors can already choose to load additional browsers on a system, but are there really a significant number of system vendors that want to remove Internet Explorer from the Windows systems they sell?
If they are complaining about Microsoft tying IE to Windows, tying involves forcing a customer to buy one product to get another. The harm comes from customers having to pay for this additional product to get the product they need.
There are a wide variety of browsers, including IE, that are available for free.
I also don't know of any OS distributions for PC type systems that don't include a browser. A browser is something you would expect in any such distribution.
I understand that there are far too many web developers that develop content that only runs properly in IE. I understand that Microsoft's competitors would like to have developers feel more doubt about reaching their target market unless they develop content that will run well on a wider variety of browsers.
However, forcing Microsoft to not include what has become an integral part of a desktop operating system in their OS in order to make things easier for their competitors is not the purpose of antitrust law.
It's too much government intervention where such intervention is not necessary.
If loading additional browsers adds value for little cost, then system vendors will load them on the systems. The other browser companies need to offer enough additional value over IE in order for customers to care. If they can't, then they don't deserve a larger market share.
I use Firefox because I like Firefox better than IE. I kind of like Chrome from Google as well. However, my wife for some strange reason prefers IE and uses it despite Firefox being loaded on the same machine, and I have to admit IE does what it is supposed to do well enough that you really don't need a different browser.
It is not the job of the government to force the market into a competitive situation by hindering the market leader. The job of the government is to keep the market leader from preventing others from having a chance to compete.
IE's competitors have opportunity, they just don't offer advantages over IE that are compelling enough for a large percentage of people to switch to using them.

[lenioia]

If Microsoft cannot bundle a browser in an OS, no one shall be allowed to, Linux distributions included. Law must be equal for everyone.
Second: where's written what is and what is not part of an operating system? We should make laws to state this in order to rule when a new function is a new feature of an existing thing or is a product bundling? Things evolve and get new functions, as much as phones have grown cameras and mp3 players. Still they are a unit, not a "bundle". People expect an OS to open a web page as much as they expect a phone to take a photo, both without additional set up. Forcing Microsoft to sell an OS unable to surf the web out of the box is like forcing Apple to face competition with an IPhone unable to take photos.
Other browsers makers should just do what one expects from commercial competition: do your OS and bundle your browser with it, make an alliance with an OS maker that lacks a good browser, or do a browser enough better and with enough advertising to make people or OEMs choosing you. No one is preventing people from loading whatever browser they may ever like over windows, if they are not doing it, it means your products or your marketing lacks something. And this is your problem, not a Microsoft problem, as much as the poor success of live search is Microsoft’s problem and not Google’s one.
Or what, we should impose, for example, Samsung to sell LCDless notebooks in order to help competing firms that are able to produce only LCDs and lack their own notebook models?

[getmything]

This is the most brainless of actions displayed by the EU commission. I don't understand what's the problem here if Microsoft puts IE with Windows.
See, if a user is aware of and prefers a particular other browser, then he will go and install it. Simple as that, Microsoft is not blocking that. Even to install other browser in a simple way, you need a browser to go to a site and download the desired browser, vendors can't install other browsers on demand.
But if users are not aware of another browser, then they need one to browse the net, and why shouldn't that be IE. If over time their preferences change, users will change the browsers. I support intervention and prevention on many issues but not on a small issue like this.

[raife1]

You know...

1. - A "browser" is NOT "part" of an "Operating System" (no matter what a repeatedly convicted illegal-monopoly claims). And, -including- "software applications" (I.E. such as "Linux", "Apple", etc., do)... is NOT the same thing as intentionally, irremovably, integrating/embedding one product inside of another dominant-product... thereby, trying to use one, effective, "monopoly" to try to create/impose another monopoly, to "disadvantage all competition" (...in other words, knowingly VIOLATING numerous "Antitrust Laws", to control a market).

2. - Microsoft did NOT create the Internet, nor "web browsing", nor, "the Webs" popularity (in fact Microsoft, quite literally, nearly missed the Internet-boat, entirely, and decided to forcibly-commandeer the market, after the fact, using the, clearly, illegal methods for which they are now, merely, being held accountable).

3. - It has been PROVEN (repeatedly, in court, all around the world, and in numerous other venues) that Microsoft DID, quite intentionally, "integrate" "IE" (as "irremovably" as possible) into "Windows" specifically to "cripple competition" and to try to seize control of Internet-use. And, they have been caught, repeatedly, LYING about it, ever since.

4. - Microsoft continues to, intentionally, distort, and confuse, "standards" to "disadvantage" any "competitor" (and, not just commercial-competitors... but also any who stand in the way of Microsofts desire for nearly absolute control over consumers).

5. - Furthermore, Microsoft continues to play the same-old unethical, deceptive, games, such as; effectively refusing to actually comply with court-decisions... pretending that whatever Microsoft wants (at any given moment) is simply an absolute technical-imperative (which simply cannot be avoided)... pretending that "hiding" a few elements of a product, actually "removes it"... and, also, producing intentionally "crippled" "alternative products" that are actually, very clearly, specifically-designed to prevent those products from ever providing any real "consumer-choice" (...and possibly, thereby gaining any consumer-traction in the market-place).

And, 6. - Microsoft (and its defenders) continues to engage in the exact same types of deceitful-manipulation of the industry, and the FACTS... that they (Microsoft) have, literally, employed for decades.

As someone who has worked in the industry for decades... I am simply sick of Microsofts crap. And, frankly, someone needs to restore the "Law", and "fair competition", to the industry... for everyones best interests... no matter how much manipulation, rewriting of history, arm-twisting, bribes, and deception, Microsoft employs.

[flatrock19]

The devinition of an operating system has changed quite a bit in the nearly 30 years I've been working with computers. By your definition is Notepad part of the Windows operating system? Would consumers be better off if Microsoft had not been able to include Notepad in Windows and was forced to sell all the basic utilities we have come to expect seperately?

Windows itself is the integration of a GUI with kernel features. It was originally sold an a seperate operating environment and was only later integrated into a more seamless product. However, doing so is a reasonable evolution of the operating system that has benefitted consumers.

Consumers want products that are easy to use and integrate the functionality they desire as seamlessly as possible. As operating systems have evolved over time, functionality that is considered part of the core functionality consumers expect has been integrated into the Operating System. This is not unique to Windos, nor was Microsoft the first to integrate graphical interfaces that ran programs.

A web browser is another interface in which data is displayed and programs are run. Actually when Netscape was on top of the world Steve Anderson bragged that they were going to make Windows irrelevant because software would be run in the browser and the underlying OS would be unimportant.

Microsoft's IE at the time was a minimally improved version of Mosaic that wasn't much of a threat to Netscapes far superior browser. However, Microsoft responded by dumping billions of dollars into improving IE and in a relatively short time closed that gap to the point where IE and Netscape were comperable in quality and functionality.

Did Microsoft then abuse their monopoly in the OS market to gain browser market share? The courts eventually ruled that Microsoft had a monopoly in the OS market and that they had tied IE to Windows 95.

However, what you don't seem to understand is monopolies are not illegal. Nor is what Microsoft did illegal for any company that is not a monopoly. Nor is antitrust law supposed to keep a company fron innovating. Nor is antitrust law meant to protect the interests of a competitor of a monopoly. Antitrust law is meant to protect the interests of consumers.

Does it really clearly harm consumers to always get IE on every Windows system? I know all Windows users having IE installed makes it harder for other browsers to gain market share. However it also provides benefits to Windows users to always have a browser with Windows and have it be the same one. While it is hard for competing browsers to gain a large market shareas long as Microsoft continues to improve IE, if IE stagnates too much, then competing browsers can provide compelling reasons for people to switch. The largest barrier to other companies distributing their browsers was dial-up internet, and that is no longer the huge issue it once was.

"3. - It has been PROVEN
(repeatedly, in court, all around the world, and in numerous other
venues) that Microsoft DID, quite intentionally, "integrate" "IE" (as
"irremovably" as possible) into "Windows" specifically to "cripple
competition" and to try to seize control of Internet-use. And, they
have been caught, repeatedly, LYING about it, ever since."

This is an often repeated, but essentially ridicules comment. Microsoft has very clealy said that they considered internet browsing to be an essential part of what PCs would be doing. Microsoft's success has long been derived from integrating essential functionality into their OS and the market has evolved. No "operating system" developer could succeed without doing so. Of course they integrated IE into Windows as seamlessly as possible. The purpose of antitrust law is not to hold back the market leader so that others can catch up and surpass them. It is not to prevent the leading product from being improved. Yet people irrationally think that any action by Microsoft to integrate new features or functionality into Windows must be illegal.

"4. - Microsoft continues
to, intentionally, distort, and confuse, "standards" to "disadvantage"
any "competitor" (and, not just commercial-competitors... but also any
who stand in the way of Microsofts desire for nearly absolute control
over consumers)."

Having spent years working on a standards body I can confidently say that they need little help from Microsoft to end up confused and distorted. However, there is truth to your statement. In many cases Microsoft chose not to play well with others and chose to implement vendor specific implemtations, or at least vendor specific extensions to standard implementations. Vendor specific implementations and extensions are hardly unique to Microsoft. Most any major player in a technology implements some vendor specific features in order to differentiate them from their competitors. Nor am I aware of doing so being illegal for a company that is a monopoly. It has been a founding principal of our country that people should be able to make money from the things they create. Why should any company be forced to give away what they have spent their own money to develop?

With Open Source developers CHOOSE to give away what they have developed which can produce many benefits. However, no one should be forced to give away what they have developed. If closed implementations don't provide a good enough solution, then an open solution should provide enough benefits to gain market share on it's own. The fact that the closed implementation is part of the OS or from the same vendor as the OS does create a barrier that competitors have to overcome, but it is a tiny barrier unless the OS vendor's implementation suits the needs of consumers.

The government should never interfere in the market unless the actions of a monopoly are clearly causing significant harm to consumers.

"As someone who has
worked in the industry for decades... I am simply sick of Microsofts
crap. And, frankly, someone needs to restore the "Law", and "fair
competition", to the industry... for everyones best interests... no
matter how much manipulation, rewriting of history, arm-twisting,
bribes, and deception, Microsoft employs."

There is fair competition in the marketplace. The desire of the open source community for everyting to be freely available isn't part of our system of laws. Companies and individuals have a right to protect their own investment in products, continue to improve them, and to sell them. That includes Microsoft.

If Microsoft did not work to improve their products competitors would eventually displace them, and they may yet as we can see by competing browsers increase in market share and increasing browser independence from the underlying OS.

I've developed on close to a dozen operating systems to some extent or another over the years. Some do some things better than others and I'm a strong proponent of using the best tool for the job. There are many applications I would not consider using any version of Windows for. However, Microsoft's 7 year old Windows XP still suits my need for a Desktop OS far better than any other OS barring possibly OSX, and since Apple is far more restrictive than even Microsoft in how they tie things together I have little interest in switching to their product.

Linux for the desktop has improved immensely. However, until it places the needs of the consumers first and it's idealogies second I don't see how it will replace Windows on the desktop. While you can reasonably argue that Microsoft puts it's own interests ahead of consumers that is true of every OS out there, just in different ways.

Consumers, not the government should decide what is best for them. Unless anticompetitive (or overly competitive behavior) very clearly harms consumers more than it benefits them, the government should stay out of it.

[raife1]

I must confess. I am impressed. The number of red-herrings, misrepresentations of the true-situation, and re-hashing of easily disproven, originally Microsoft-coined, mis-information is truly staggering. An excellent rebuttal and propaganda, piece. Well-played... Almost persuasive... However...

Quote

"The devinition(sic) of an operating system has changed quite a bit in the nearly 30 years I've been working with computers."

First, the definition of an "operating system..." has NOT really, changed" (except in Microsofts, self-serving, bizarre, definition... created while they (Microsoft) were engaged in the U.S. Federal Anti-Trust case (...which, by the way, Microsoft LOST, in every court that heard the case). The definition of an "Operating System" remains the same as it has always been... Namely; providing the essential elements that allow basic "system operations" (I.E. an "Operating System"), the running of ->separate<- software, and the control of the system by the "user". This definition goes ALL the way back to the original "mainframes", of many decades ago, and it is still the actual definition used by computer-scientists, the world-over.

Quote

"By your definition is Notepad part of the Windows operating system?"

As held by virtually EVERY IT-person (with ANY experience outside of the Microsoft-worldview), such "applications" are clearly NOT "part" of the "operating system". They (such software) are merely included "applications/utilities". In other words, they are not necessary to the OS (and can easily be removed or replaced).

Frankly, to mention "notepad", and "IE"... as though they were, in any way, equivalent, is patently silly... at best.



>"Would consumers be better off if Microsoft had not been able to include Notepad in Windows and was forced to sell all the basic utilities we have come to expect seperately(sic)?"

Ah... the first red-herring. No one has really argued that Microsoft should not be allowed to ->include<- any software ...let alone such basic, non-competitive, utilities as: "notepad" (your-own poor, if not intentionally-deceptive, example). The Laws that Microsoft DID break... both, in the United States, and Europe... (and apparently also in South America, and Asia, according to courts all over the world) involved Microsofts, intentional, irremovable, deceptive, "integration" of "competing" products and technologies... specifically designed in such a way as to "disadvantage" (or, even, eliminate) competition (and, thereby, rob consumers of any -TRUE- choice).

Quote

"However, doing so (integrating separate Microsoft products) is a reasonable evolution of the operating system that has benefitted(sic) consumers."

Yes, I believe that I read that directly from the "legal-response" created by Microsofts lawyers... after Microsoft lost the first "Anti-Trust" case. Too bad, the courts... the industry... AND "consumers", themselves... seem to hold such a different opinion.

Quote

"Consumers want products that are easy to use and integrate the functionality they desire as seamlessly as possible. As operating systems have evolved over time, functionality that is considered part of the core functionality consumers expect has been integrated into the Operating System. This is not unique to Windos(sic), nor was Microsoft the first to integrate graphical interfaces that ran programs."

AHEM... RIGHT... Except that... the reality is that "Consumers" (and the industry) want to use the software they CHOOSE, the way THEY want to use it. This is something that Microsoft, clearly, STILL, doesnt really understand (Well, actually... I think they do -understand- it. It just gets in the way of Microsofts corporate-goals, and therefore, simply DOESNT REALLY MATTER to Microsoft). And, frankly, "consumers" DO NOT CARE... HOW... something (which is, effectively, invisible to them) is done. What they DO care about is losing control, and not having competitive-choices, because of one corporations long-term, illegal, market-manipulations. And, all of Microsofts, self-serving, lies about "innovation", and "evolution", do not change that basic reality.

Furthermore, Microsofts methodologies (Microsofts technological, and corporate, choices as to the way) of doing things... IS NOT... simply natural or, necessarily, the best ways to accomplish such goals.

Irremovable "integration" does NOT provide a great "benefit" to consumers/users. In fact, it has been proven to create all manner of problems (in "security", "competition", and technologically).

Quote

"However, what you don't seem to understand is monopolies are not illegal."

Another red-herring. I never said anything about "monopolies" (per say). However, what Microsoft DID DO, was ILLEGAL (illegally creating, abusing, and maintaining, a monopoly are just some of Microsofts, very well-documented, history, and ongoing behavior).



"Nor is what Microsoft did illegal for any company that is not a monopoly."

Yeah, actually, that, pretty much, IS the basis of "Anti-Trust" Law. So, I have to ask... was this willful obtuseness..?



"Nor is antitrust law supposed to keep a company fron(sic) innovating."

And here we have one of the most-repeated pieces of deceptive-rhetoric (RED-HERRINGS), to come DIRECTLY, from Microsoft.



"Nor is antitrust law meant to protect the interests of a competitor of a monopoly. Antitrust law is meant to protect the interests of consumers."

Actually, "anti-Trust Laws" protect "the interests of consumers" BY "protecting" competitors FROM abusive, illegal, unfair, monopolistic, practices.



"No "operating system" developer could succeed without doing so (integrating a "Web-browser" into the Operating System)"


Well... if you arbitrarily define ->success<- as maintaining an illegal, abusive, monopoly... then maybe your statement isnt as absolutely silly as all the facts to the contrary, make it. Otherwise, this statement is just plain preposterous.



"...people irrationally think that any action by Microsoft to integrate new features or functionality into Windows must be illegal"

My... yet, another RED-HERRING. No, things that directly-violate "the Law"... are "illegal". Thats the point.



"Vendor specific implementations and extensions are hardly unique to Microsoft."

And, here we have yet another red-herring. No one said Microsoft was the ONLY perpetrator of such behavior. What HAS BEEN PROVEN is that Microsoft HAS repeatedly "abused" their position to intentionally distort, and create "standards" that DO, directly, "harm consumers" and competitors.



"Nor am I aware of doing so (changing "standards" to disadvantage" competition) being illegal for a company that is a monopoly."

Boy... some people REALLY do need to work harder on grasping the very concept of "Anti-Trust".



"Why should any company be forced to give away what they have spent their own money to develop?"

Will these red-herrings never cease..? NO ONE has, even remotely, suggested that.



"If closed implementations don't provide a good enough solution, then an open solution should provide enough benefits to gain market share on it's own."

Of course, that does ABSOLUTELY-DEPEND upon fair-competition... doesnt it..?



"The government should never interfere in the market unless the actions of a monopoly are clearly causing significant harm to consumers."

Uh... you do know that that is EXACTLY what has been proven (in court) to be going on... right..?



"There is fair competition in the marketplace."

Oh... If, ONLY, that were the case (and, was supportable by ANY facts, what-so-ever, regarding Microsofts actions)...


"The desire of the open source community for everyting(sic) to be freely available isn't part of our system of laws."

I am beginning to think I could walk to China on all these red-herrings. I havent once (nor has ANYBODY else, here) suggested that there is anything wrong with proprietary business-models. Nor, am I some demented socialist that thinks everything should be "free".



"Companies and individuals have a right to protect their own investment in products, continue to improve them, and to sell them."

Yet again, Microsofts-own HARDCORE misdirection (one of Microsofts FAVORITE red-herrings).



"Microsoft puts it's own interests ahead of consumers that is true of every OS out there, just in different ways."

Two observations... First, how exactly does "open source" put its "interests" ahead of its own users/developers (thats really sort of oxymoronic, isnt it)..? And two, serving consumers-interests is supposed to be exactly HOW a capitalistic company is supposed to work (unless they really ARE completely unscrupulous, and consumers really do NOT have any REAL choices).



And, finally..

"Consumers, not the government should decide what is best for them. Unless anticompetitive (or overly competitive behavior) very clearly harms consumers more than it benefits them, the government should stay out of it."

I totally agree. However, when consumers are intentionally robbed of REAL choices by companies that, simply, will not stop "violating the laws"... and damaging consumer-rights and choice... and, keeps attacking fair-competition... then it IS "the governments", very, JOB to step in, and put a stop to it... no matter how much money, and propaganda, they have to face.

I just kinda think its sad that we Americans have to rely on Europe to do the right thing.

[hawhite]

I would like to point out a few things.

First Microsoft was accused of having a near monopoly in the OS market and using those powers to be anti-competitive in the browser market. Whatever one believes of Microsoft, this is the only arena where they have been found possibly anticompetitive. Near Monopolies are not Monopolies. Almost doesn't count.

On the question of monopolies being legal or not, monopolies are legal in many situations. If a company operates in a given market, and corners it based on their merit then it is a legal monopoly. The US santions many monopolies within a given market sector, cable companies, telephone operators, etc.

Operating Systems respond to market forces as anything else, if a company could sell a operating system without these additional features then they would do so. It would be cheaper for them to develop the OS if that was the case. Some would argue that in a connected world that the OS should handle the internet connectivity. Operating systems didn't always have networking capability. Over time the operating system has grown to encompass a lot of things that were once unimaginable.

The EC seems to take the position that anything that is included for free in the Microsoft OS somehow is a threat to all of humanity.

[flatrock19]

+The definition of an
"Operating System" remains the same as it has always been... Namely;
providing the essential elements that allow basic "system operations"
(I.E. an "Operating System"), the running of ->separate<-
software, and the control of the system by the "user". This definition
goes ALL the way back to the original "mainframes", of many decades
ago, and it is still the actual definition used by computer-scientists,
the world-over.+

Now the term for the core essential functions is the kernel, and the term operating system is used to indicate a broader scope of basic software that provides the basic functionality for the system.

The definition you gave is also used for the operating system, although for as long as I remember there has always been debate about what are essential elements. Over time, more and more functionality has been included.

There are purists that wouldn't consider basic utilities, such as all the two letter utilities in Unix variants, to be part of the OS. However, it's pretty difficult to do much without them.

For a little broader scope, what about administration utilities that set up user accounts and set quotas for disk usage. Are they part of the OS?

What is an essential element? Some would say that it's just what is needed to provide an interface to the hardware, and maybe a scheduler. Others would say it depends on the system. What is essential for a server is different than what is essential for a desktop system, or a cell phon, or a web appliance.

The majority of the programming I've done under Windows has been device drivers. Are the network adapter and host bus adaptar drivers I've written part of the OS? They provide the basic functionality needed to communicate with hardware in the system, and when you get a blue screen of death on Windows, it's far more likely that someone like me screwed up on a third party driver, than it being a bug in Microsoft's code, though there definitely are bugs in Microsoft's code.

To my knowledge there has never been a definition of an operating system with clearly defined limits that was accepted by everyone. Even the bounds of the definition of the kernel are continuously being stretched. Is software RAID a function of the OS or the kernel, or is it an application? How about clustering?

Windows is a commercial product. It is sold to the average consumer. What do you think the average consumer considers to be an essential element of the software that makes their computer do what they want it to do. Is browsing the internet all that different than browsing the hard drive in your system?

The definition of a monopoly is also a bit nebulous. To have a monopoly you have to have so much control over a market as to no longer be effected by market pressures. Microsoft added IE to Windows so that Windows would continue to provide the basic functionality consumers whated from a system. They spent billions of dollars developing it and included it for free.

The Microsoft case took anti-trust law some place it haddn't gone before. The government didn't manage to show that Microsoft added IE and harmed customers by raising the price of the combined product. That was how the monopolistic act of tying was invoked before.

The DOJ showed Microsoft's long history of adding new features into Windows and how the market for competing products that provided that functionality died off over time, and called it anti-competitive behavior.

They claimed that customers are harmed because Microsoft chose to add things like Media Player, IE, disk compression (not that anyone uses it anymore), to Windows.

The simple fact is that people want the same interface and the same tools for the thing they use their computers for. They don't want to sit down at the new computer they just bought and find their audio and video files play in a different player they are unfamiliar with. They don't want to have to understand the software on a PC well enough to make an intelligent purchasing decision as to if the basic functionality they want will come with the system they buy from Dell or whoever. They don't want to look through the list of software included and see if it has what they want, they want to buy a complete product that has what they want and a familiar interface. Microsoft's "monopoly" on Operating Systems for PCs is a natural one.

Look at what is happening with netbooks. It shows us both sides. First of all the high than normal returns on Linux netbookssseems to indicate that a lot of people just don't want to learn something different even though it does provide most of the same functionality. Some aspects of it work better, some worse, but the same general functionality at a lower price. The other side of the coin is that Microsoft had to lower the price of XP and extend it's life cycle. The fact that Microsoft can't just force people to accept Vista with all it's shortcommings, and felt the need to cut the price of XP on netbooks shows they don't have a traditional monopoly.

They have the competitive advantage of having the largest market share. However, if some other OS was to take their place, they would have that same advantage after they got established. Are we supposed to always place restrictions on the market leader so their is an artificially "leveled" playing field?

Is a level playing field established by having everyone play by the same rules? All of Microsoft's competitors are allowed to do all the "anticompetitive" things Microsoft has done, and if the judge has ruled that Microsoft still faced market pressures and reacted to them instead of deciding that those factors were insignificant, none of those things would have been illegal for Microsoft either.

No conpany that spent so much money and effort reacting to changes in the market as Microsoft did had ever been declared a Monopoly before.

The Microsoft antitrust case broke new ground. It could have very well went either way. 95% of what was brought up in court wasn't legally relevant. All Microsoft's people's talk about cutting off acompany's air supply or how they were going to destroy the competition aren't really all that different from what you'll hear managment say to try and motivate their employees in a competitive market in just about any company. Things like that still are said, they just aren't put in emails and memos anymore and companys have email deletion policies now to try and make sure such things can't be used to sway a jury in a lawsuit. The DOJ did everything they could to sway public opinion. The judge allowed so much of that to be admitted because it wasn't a jury trial. However at the end of the day the goal of Antitrust legislation is to do what is in the best interests of the public, so swaying public opinion had to have an effect.

There was also the fact that state attorney generals from across the country and the DOJ had a vested interest in seeing Microsoft declared a monopoly.

So now we have a slightly new version of the definition of a Monopoly that means any company with a big lead in their market, even if they have to work to maintain that lead, and do react to market pressures can now be considered a Monopoly.

It's kind of ironic that the government's case relied on a very narrow definition of an Operating System and a very broad definition of a Monopoly.

What's worse is that the DOJ didn't even address Microsoft's behavior that I would consider most harmful. The most harmful thing Microsoft did was how they were bundling MS Office at such a reduced rate on new systems. Though such things are a common practice by companies it tied Windows (which doesn't acutally make much money for Microsoft) toOffice which is their cash cow.

Why do you think Sun has dumped so much money into Open Office even though office applicatons aren't part of their core market, they give it away for free, and they've been struggling for market share? Because they want to cut into Microsoft's revenues because Microsoft dumps an immense amount of money into developing products that compete with Sun, and Sun has had a harder and harder time subsidizing their own software development through hardware sales.