MSFT should be free to put any and every app into their os, and until there is something better which the OEMs can opt for, or until the desktop computing model is replace by this yet unknown new product (the one which could replace windows overnight), the app vendors and oems can deal with it. The oems can't be hurting that badly to have gone along with this for so long.
A concise statement of the "ham sandwich defense", followed by a bunch of stuff I can't quite parse. Of course, the "ham sandwich defense" is inappropriate in this context, as IE isn't a bundled app, it's "integrated". I get confused too, though.
For some government lawyer to be deciding how the computer industry should be run is assinine.
Well, assinine (sic) is as assinine does. The question of remedies is hypothetical at this point. Personally, I find the idea that the success of "Standard Microsoft business practice" somehow invalidates antitrust law somewhat curious. I also find the idea that whatever Microsoft throws into the OS distribution is "what the customer wants" or "what the market has chosen" curious. Everyone will buy the current Windows or NT, no matter what, because there's a lot of software for it. In the current context, Bill says most of it isn't Microsoft software, but I imagine he has plans to change that. If pressed, I'll dig up the Microsoftese definition of what's fair, outside of the current context of course.
Cheers, Dan. |
