Do you think everybody who is critical of Microsoft is biased? That's a lot of people!
I never said that. But I will say that Lawyers, Politicians, Groups and Competitors are people -- and that's a lot of people alright. There's certainly at least one thing in common with them and, sometimes it's just plain obvious just what they're after and why they're after it.
IMHO, Microsoft had better have a plan for what to do if the findings of fact and most of the conclusions of law are upheld.
Oh I'm sure of that Charles. They didn't become Microsoft without great planning and execution on all fronts. The way I speculate the end-game is (short of a mistrial or a friendly settlement -- the latter being highly probable), it not being a matter of if Microsoft wins in the end but how badly do both sides lose; what's the price that will have been paid. It will probably come at a high price in the end though, as it already has via confidence among many shareholders (myself not being one of them), and the general overall market as well. Not to mention, other every day tax paying citizens. As you may have noticed my view has changed from a win or lose POV, to now the lose-lose POV. I was wrong and continue to learn as I go along.
Has it been fun so far for myself? No. And that's Microsoft's fault.
Has it been fun for Lawyers, Politicians, Groups and Competitors so far? Sure seems that way. And that's Microsoft's fault.
Should Microsoft have settled awhile ago during the Posner mediated talks? From what I've read they were prepared and willing along with the DoJ but, the AGs weren't. And of course(!) that's Microsoft's fault too....
Should've Microsoft integrated IE into Windows? Yes, absolutely.
A) Do consumers benefit from this? Yes, absolutely.
B) Do competitors benefit from this? In a way absolutely yes, in others absolutely not.
C) Did/do Lawyers, Politicians, Groups and Competitors benefit and become seemingly more powerful as a result, while this was/is in dispute? Stop smiling.
D) Was it a blatant move for protecting an alleged monopoly or, for other reasons such as some measurable consumer benefit? Story at eleven.
..And the Beat goes on and on and on..... (in a somewhat digressional way <g>).
My thinking is that the Justices, such as Ginsburg (the Judge that served in Reagan's DoJ for four years) on the Appellate Court, are going to have a far different look on the matter then TPJ. In fact, my thinking is also of such that when it's all said and done in a _worst_case_ scenario, with views contrasting so brightly from the lower Court; there will be no substantive plan needed at all for a wound(s) in need of a Band-Aid, and a Check. The latter being one of the primary reasons this was pursued initially. Along with some code but; can't touch that.
Thunder |
