<<>>> 3.) There is significant demand for a "whole product". Read "Inside the Tornado," or just ask the
guys at the local software store/OEM. People want a combined solution.
Yes, but there is significant demand for a non-integrated product as well.>>
If there is significant demand for a non-integrated product, why is MSFT in Court? There was plenty of supply of a non-integrated product, yet it was losing market share. Why is that? Why did the vendors of that non-integrated product integrate their product (mail client, html editor, news reader, etc.) if thier was so much demand for a non-integrated product. Why are they wasting their money on lobbying against an integrated product if thier is a significant natural demand for the exact opposite of what they are lobbying for? And finally, where is your copy of Trumpet?
<Also, inferring that they do not understand the technology is a blanket statement that I don't think is true. Don't you think that there are any software developers on the DOJ team? It seems clear that they have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the issues, and probably have a reasonable understanding of what a DLL is, etc.|>
You can't be serious. Haven't you noticed the technical blunders of the judge adn DOJ? The DOJ asks for specific relief from the Court's. When they get it, they complaing that that is not the relief that they meant, it is only the relief that they asked for. They craft a consent order requesting specific actions in ambigous words. When the order is tested and found to be wanting, they say "but that's not what we meant to imply". The judge doesn't know the "technical" difference between de-install and remove, and has the nerve to go public flouting the erroneous findings of a non-scientific test, apparently in a deterimental attempt at MSFT's position.
And you think these guys are technically inclined? |
