Charles, I don't know but the MSFT news today seems to be causing you stress out of proportion to what it is. I assume you're more upset about the DOJ's dropping of the bundling issue than the breakup...that was never going to happen anyway.
Did you see the the rather amazing Register article about Jean-Louis Gassee's offer to the DOJ to testify that Microsoft contractually prohibited box builders from shipping a dual-boot system (i.e., Windows and BeOS)? They told him to shut up about that and stick to the browser issues!!!
However Microsoft OEM contracts forbid a visible dual-boot option, and although OEMs were keen to differentiate themselves by offering Be's "Media OS" as an alternative, they risked breaching the OEM agreements.
theregister.co.uk
It's amazing to me that this issue was never brought up in the case. Microsoft, you see, is in favor of a free market. Competition is good for customers, and all Microsoft wants is the good of customers. So they contractually forbid their OEM partners from giving customers a choice (and maybe becoming a little less commoditized in the bargain). Because customers are better off, and the free market is more free, if illegal contracts ensure that the only choice is Microsoft.
Now let's see, what do the Microsoft droids say? Oh yeah. "Anybody can compete with Microsoft, just build a better O/S". Except that the OEM's aren't allowed to let you dual-boot it with Windows, by illegal contractual restriction with Microsoft.
Charles, if it makes you feel any better, I doubt you sold at the bottom.
--QS |
