Microsoft Urges Judge Not to Break Windows nytimes.com
because Windows is perfectly capably of breaking all by itself? Early and often, as they used to say in Chicago. Hey, that circle back to Windows was unintentional!
Removing the browser would "fracture and shatter" the systems that are licensed to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's attorney, Richard Urowsky, said.
Hey, maybe that's why I've had so many problems with Windows- I've fractured and shattered it by removing IE! Bummer. Just punishment, I guess, for doubting the uniformity and integrity of the Windows experience.
A Justice Department lawyer, Phillip Malone, argued that the two systems are separate. Because they can be and are sold separately, he said, they cannot be considered an integrated product under the consent decree.
The department is arguing that Microsoft is simply using its controlling power in the desktop market to force manufacturers to install the browser so it can gain ground in its war with Netscape Corp.
"Microsoft is very concerned about winning the browser war," Malone said.
And who could disagree with that? Of course, it's probably true the consent decree is not the best vehicle for this particular endeavor. Nobody thought it was meaningful at the time, except maybe Anne Bingaman, and where is she now? This is just one little skirmish.
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. Jerry, I wasn't trying to say anything into which way the case will go, just making snide comments as usual. People should read the articles and make their own judgements, I basicly agree with you that this isn't much of a threat to Microsoft, one way or the other. I sort of liked the part about Urowsky saying that Justice could have negotiated an ammended decree "but they chose not to follow that path". I'm sure any amemndments Microsoft would have agreed to wouldn't have been any more meaningful that the current decree, but would have taken up a lot of time. So it goes. |
