Thanks for the laugh, Reggie, you're more neutral than most. After all, the precedent of US vs. Microsoft, i.e. the laughable '95 consent decree, proves Microsoft isn't a monopoly, right? I think even the Microsoft legal eagles, such as they were, would have been afraid to bring that one up in court.
Naive high school civics guy says what you think doesn't matter much compared to what the judge says. Casual trial observer says it's pretty amusing to hear everybody complaining about how lopsided the judge's opinion is, when it seemed that the government witnesses held up pretty well in court, while the Microsoft witnesses were good for a lot of entertainment. I know, all that out of context email, plus Bill on video asking how do you define "definition", it was just so unfair. As the trial was structured, it was up to the judge to weigh credibility, and one side seemed to have a somewhat harder time putting up witness who'd stand up under cross examination than the other.
It's not over till it's over, of course. Personally, I'm looking forward to Microsoft arguing how the march of technology makes it all irrelevant, at the same time they're trying to drag things out to the maximum degree possible. Or maybe they'll join DoJ in petitioning for a direct review by the Supreme Court, who can say? Somehow, I think the minds of Microsoft are bigger than that, though.
Cheers, Dan. |
