So tell us what fraction of that might have been exposed had there been an agreed upon settlement, up to and including no admission of guilt? Strike that, what portion of that do you content would have been sued for in the event Microsoft was deemed guilty?
Who really knows for sure, we could conjecture & debate this until both of us were blue in the hands, just to run full circle.
What I am assured of is that Bill Gates & Steve Ballmer are/were far more aware of the details (and possible threat) of a crippling settlement proposal at hand better than you or myself, and thus chose to continue their defense. Having said that, it is also my belief they would have been far more inclined to settle awhile ago if the DOJ (to a greater extent the few state AG's) wasn't so hell bent on positioning Microsoft into oblivion. It's a sad mistake to think that Microsoft is fighting this out of mundane arrogance or entertainment value over shareholder value. Despite the popular thought, it's not a game.
Having done that, please explain how your case is helped by a lengthy, carful legal process that concludes by stipulating that Microsoft has in fact been violating the law.
The word "concludes" is defined largely by closure, end, and finality. We are not there as of yet. When we do arrive there, everyone will know it, and may reflect in retrospect quite differently then, as they do now. It's monumentally important to be reminded that "my case" as you refer to, is not just mine but everyone else as well; this defense represents far more than just U.S. vs Microsoft. The resolve of this case will set the precedent of our future regarding anti-trust, at least in the short term.
For crying out loud Gary, go tell your fairy tales to somebody else.
Be patient Rod, soon the Judiciaries of a Higher Court(s) will reveal just which side has willfully attempted to espouse Sherman with their heartfelt, self serving, extortionary agenda in the name of the consumer. How much more speciously ironic can it be.
Cordially,
Gary
|
