I'd say the Apple case is an extremely weak parallel. That one was dubious from the start, and Microsoft wasn't even the primary target. Everybody knew the mac was a xerox knockoff. Plus, the whole case predated Windows 3.0. Not trying the case in the press, what an original strategy, obviously gone by the wayside.
As for the brilliant handling of the consent decree, I'd say that one's going to come back to haunt Bill, if it hasn't already. You think Bill's weasel words will get into any future settlement without extremely intense scrutiny? It might have been ok if Microsoft showed any good faith in the effort, but they sneered at the settlement right from the start, and are sneering still to this day. Plus, we have Bill's brilliant last minute negotiating ploy in the current suit, where his carrot was pulled off the table before the other side even got there. Microsoft couldn't have made it harder to settle the case if they tried.
Microsoft winning in court is a very big if at this point. There's all that email, with the "colorful" language, perfectly consistent with how we all know they operate. Do you think the "Mind of Reg(TM)" context defense will hold up in court? I'd like to Microsoft try it, needless to say. The process can be dragged out indefinitely, of course, but that's not going to help from the PR angle. A quick victory for Microsoft, I don't know how you figure that one. They're also still up against Judge Jackson, who they've shown so much respect for in the past few months. I'd say they'd best come up with something better that the old Chrysler car radio / We must be free to imitate, er, integrate, I mean innovate / beyond the comprehension of mere mortal lines this time around. For what it's worth, first of all I'd advise Bill to quit acting as his own attorney, but that's repetitious as usual.
Cheers, Dan. |
