Those memos only indicate a healthy, competitive company.
Example, from your link:
Similar comments were found in an e-mail written by Paul Maritz, group vice president of the platforms and applications group, who wrote that Microsoft must "blunt" Java's momentum and "reestablish ActiveX and non-Java approaches . . . [to] protect our core asset Windows -- the thing we get paid $'s for."
Think for a couple seconds, M31: What company out there doesn't want to "blunt" a competing product's momentum? Certainly Sun treasures its Java, and abhors Active-X. One could presume that Sun wants to "blunt" Active-X.
The reality, M31, is that it's not illegal to think competitively. Indeed, all companies think obsessively about their competition.
The question here in the trial is not going to be "is it illegal to write a memo exhorting the product team members to try harder". No. Not unless America has turned into some kind of Fourth Reich. The question will be, "has Microsoft used it's dominant position to drive rivals out of business, using excessive bullying tactics." Or some such. We don't know what the questions will be. In fact the DOJ doesn't either. You see, the DOJ has broad and vague powers vested in it with the Sherman anti-trust act. They can make up new laws as they go along, designed to fit an occassion which has already taken place.
But some aren't content even there. Hal was speculating in how Microsoft may soon control his e-commerce, his personal banking, his cable viewing habits, his shoe size, the gas station he buys gas at, and any number of other imaginitive and speculative evils. I don't remember all the items he listed, but I'm so fearful of Hal that I'm rampantly speculating, as he has done. Clearly Hal fears Microsoft. I can't help that. |
