First, regarding your comment " the case vs. MSFT is not being brought by intelligent people but rather by political hacks", there is much truth to this. Much of the anti-trust case against MS, and also Intel, is political. That doesn't automatically also mean that it is groundless, however.
Given the overall industry situation, it remains my opinion, and the judge's opinion also (but I agree that neither makes it "right") that MS was probably engaging in anti competitive practices through these acts alone. Here, you and I differ, though even you agree that it was "heavy handed".
Beyond that, we have one area of factual disagreement which could, at least in principle, be resolved. I believe that it was MS' position that Windows 95 would be denied to Compaq if they simply installed Netscape Navigator, EVEN IF THEY LEFT IE ON IN ADDITION. You apparently believe that no denial of Win 95 would have occured unless IE was actually removed.
So, that is where our relative positions stand; I can't say with absolute certainty what stance MS actually took, I don't have the text of the letter, and the letter might not have fully stated MS' position, which may have been expressed only verbally, or perhaps even not expressed at all explicitly, but rather implied. |
