Findings of Flawed Fact, from the record.
<B. The Applications Barrier to Entry
1. Description of the Applications Barrier to Entry>
<37. Consumer interest in a PC operating system derives primarily from the ability of that system to run applications>
Or does it stem from widescale availability and the ability to provide ease of use, which then leads to the availability of applications due to consumer popularity. Windows was easier to use than DOS or Unix. At the time, the MAC OS had more applications than Windows 1.0 and 2.0 but since it was wedded to relatively expensive proprietary hardware, it could not be pervasive to the retail consumer. The logic here is flawed, or Windows would never have gotten ahead for the only company that was willing to write apps for Microsoft Windows early on was Microsoft.
<38.)....An application that is written for one PC operating system will operate on another PC operating system only if it is ported to that system, and porting applications is both time-consuming and expensive.>
Erroneous conlcusion from facts that were presented before the bench:
a.) Java applications written forr one PC operating system WILL run on another PC operating system without being ported (at least, for the most part:-).
b.) Server side HTML applications will run on nearly all PC operating systems, even if they use proprietary Microsoft technology such as VBscript, server side Active X controls and ASP. As a matter of fact, Hotmail, one of the fastest growing apps ever is a perfect example of this and it was purchased by the defendant for a half a billion dollars after being in existence for only 18 months.
<38)...Therefore, application developers tend to write first to the operating system with the most users ? Windows.>
Erroneous conclusion: the vast majority of new applications are being written for OS/platform independent Internet and Intranet use. The Judge is behind the times and he has only had the case for a year or two.
<38.) .... Developers might then port their applications to other operating systems, but only to the extent that the marginal added sales justify the cost of porting. In order to recover that cost, ISVs that do go to the effort of porting frequently set the price of ported applications considerably higher than that of the original versions written for Windows.>
Given the veracity of the my previous statement, this finding of non-fact makes no sense. Hotmail for Unix costs no more than Hotmail for the MAC or Win NT. The vast majority of Internet consumer applications are free to the consumer, subsidized by ancillary revenue, ex. advertising.
I can go on for some time, but alas, I do not have the time. The judge has made "Findings of Assumption and Speculation", and not Findings of Fact. |
