Today's news, from the usual suspects:
Court takes Microsoft/DOJ case under advisement www5.zdnet.com
No clues in Microsoft hearing news.com
Judge Hears Microsoft, U.S. Argue nytimes.com
I'll restrict my comments to the zdnn/PC Week story:
As [Microsoft attorney] Urowsky concluded his walk-through, Jackson asked, "Are you saying the consent decree was drafted with too generous a vocabulary?" To which Urowsky replied, "No. The consent decree is what it should be."
Urowsky went on to say it wasn't that Microsoft's efforts could not be challenged, but that they would need to be challenged under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Well, if that's what Microsoft wants, I'm sure it can be arranged. Better watch out for that treble damage thing, though.
Jackson submitted Urowsky to repeated questions about why IE is different from such programs as Word or Excel. He asked if there were any technological reasons why Microsoft couldn't integrate those two applications into the OS.
Urowsky's replied that it would make no economic sense but, when pressed, said there was no technological barrier to doing so.
But, it makes economic sense for Microsoft to devote whatever it takes to get everybody to take "free" IE, whether they want it or not. On that particular front, we have this other random story:
IE 4.01 requirement angers NT users news.com
But they must surely be confused. Microsoft is just giving the customers what they want. Microsoft is taking them where they want to go, they just don't understand the integrity and uniformity of the experience they are having.
Cheers, Dan. |
