Larry,
But why couldn't they have used a single machine to make the tape in the first place, and having done so, why did they represent the demonstration as something it wasn't? And finally, why should the DOJ have wasted any time discussing the what MSFT claimed to have demonstrated on the tape when the tape didn't demonstrate what they said it did?
You and I both know that the whole thing about removing IE was silly, on both sides of the argument. Both IE and Windows 95 are little more than piles of object modules collected into grab-bag dlls and exes. MSFT has great latitude over which modules get put in which files, and which dlls get distributed in which packages. The whole thing is so cloudy precisely because so much of what is in Windows and IE is secret and known only to MSFT. If it had been possible to discuss the issue on that level then it might have been possible to draw a reasoned conclusion. Like why a certain module is in dll A instead of dll B and why can't they just collect modules C, D and E into a separate dll and distribute those as part of an "IE" package. MSFT might have been able to show actual, solid software engineering reasons for the way that they had packaged things.
Sadly, there was a whole laundry-list of reasons why that couldn't happen, everything from the secrecy of the code, to the fact that the government shouldn't be in the business of ruling on software engineering practices, to the fact that the presentation of that evidence would still be going on today. Thus, both the program that "removed" IE, and the video-taped "demonstration" were little more than charades.
In the end, the only value in that whole episode was, IMHO, as an object lesson in MSFT's veracity.
FWIW.
--Bob |
