Eric: My windows 2000 program crashed while I attempted to reply to your post -- coincidence??? I don't think so <vbg>
<So - again, what is your point here? Are you saying that Microsoft's argument on this point is invalid because the company is generally not innovative? Not only is it nonsense, but the logic is a bit weak. Perhaps, I don't understand what you mean - so, please elaborate.>
MSFT puts on this defense in the court of public opinion:
1) "Consumers are buying our products -- obviously they are not being harmed, and in fact they benefit from buying our products"
2) "All we did was innovate, and we will fight to protect our right to continue to do so".
Eric, these are totally bogus claims. This company thought it could use its power one more time to "win at all costs". They rolled the dice. They lost. And I expect the way they are handling things they will continue to lose -- as will their shareholders. I am not in court with them, not trying this case, and not trying to parse the every clause in the law here either. But MSFT has already appealed to the court of public opinion, where MSFT has put on quite a "show". And what I see is, IMO, incompetent and arrogant. Based on this alone, they deserve what is coming. But more to the point, they have been found n violation. Your example of the person on death row is a good counterpoint. A person on death row, duly convicted, would not be held "innocent" purely on the basis that the appeal process had not yet been exhausted. He or she would be held in jail! Except for cases which go to the Supreme Court, every convicted person and violator of the law in this country has not "exhausted the appeal process". But fines and punishments are assigned because they have been found guilty. The law does not assume that you are innocent until you have exhausted the appeal process.
BTW, this case goes a long way to restoring my faith in the justice system. It took guts to take on MSFT -- and the judge has shown that money and power cannot bulldoze justice. |
