Thanks for the correction, John.
Facts are stubborn things - Adams.
Facts are stupid things - Reagan.
Facts are troubling things - Donahoe.
Any other candidates out there?
As to the chosen expert witness, I imagine there was a strategic decision made not to try to get too specific. Bill's a tricky guy, you never know what little traps he might have laid. Sadly, that leaves us with the files left after that add/remove excercise as what everyone would be satisfied with, except for the middle finger crowd. I wouldn't say that's the right answer, but that's an answer.
Of course, there's another answer that Microsoft brought up, which in my fashion these days I will throw into the fray for the nth time.
Microsoft attorney Steven Holley asked Cole: "The court has ordered Microsoft to give OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] a version of Windows 95 without IE. What would Microsoft have to do to allow other applications to access the Web [without IE]?"
Cole said: "We would have to add back some files, change install scripts, and make sure it works. So we would have to do quite a bit of work." (from news.com;
So, there we have yet another answer, although it would require a truly awesome amount of work, I'm sure. Leave out that testing part, probably an engineer week or something. Far more work than the lawyer thing and the kinder, gentler offensive by the top executives. Besides, engineers at Microsoft are far more valuable, I'm sure what the lawyers and top dogs make is nothing like what one or two guys to put together this little bone of good faith would cost Microsoft.
But, I'm sure you have a substantive answer for this, just as I'm sure you have a substantive answer for my take on your pleasant little IBD piece. It's always more enjoyable to sling ad hominems, though, right?
Cheers, Dan. |
