Gates said Microsoft's decision to incorporate browser technology to Windows predates the founding of its chief Internet rival, Netscape Communications, and is simply part of "the march of progress," like adding speech recognition or linguistics capabilities to the operating system. (from nytimes.com
Well, maybe you can make the case that MSN and all that other stuff was "browser technology", I suppose. But this account and the Fred Moody story (http://www.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/moody28/index.html) look like rewriting history to me. I'd say Moody was just overstating things, except that he often enough seems to be a press conduit for Microsoft.
I am quite agnostic about what the outcome of this particular legal proceeding will be. As you've said before, Microsoft could cave totally and it wouldn't make much difference, just as the original consent decree on per processor licensing of the OS made no effective difference. Any injunction against Windows98 integration is unlikely. With Hatch in on the act, I don't think that antitrust division is in danger of getting its budget zeroed for the momemt, but otherwise I still don't think antitrust is likely to be much of an impedement. But I reserve the right to find the current Gates/Moody line self-serving and disingenuous.
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. Any thoughts on the Gary Reback interview? (http://www.hotwired.com/synapse/hotseat/97/45/transcript2a.html, which I quoted in 14143) No, I don't think he's objective, of course, just the other side of the story. Who knows what the judge will think? |
