It is too late to settle with DOJ. They have already received most of bad publicity that they are going to get from this trial.
Actually, I don't believe that. I suspect that the OEMs testimony is going to bring up a host of articles about why people's problems with PCs are all Microsoft's fault (they may not be, but that will be the publicity). Also, the cross examination of the Microsoft employees is going to be incredibly grueling. Once your boss has denied knowing the meaning of the words "concern," "marketshare," and "browser," how are you going to talk about what you did and why you did it?
If they do settle, I think DOJ better ask for less than what they did just before the trial started.
Maybe, but not for the reason you've stated. The DOJ already has done massive damage to Microsoft's carefully built-up reputation (if you don't think it matters, then why does Microsoft work so hard to preserve it?), and that will affect the way business deal with them for a long long time. The DOJ gains from a settlement because they 'lock-in' their victory, so they might be willing to give up some. Microsoft gains from a settlement because they prevent further embarassment and the possibility of a really nasty action against them. But anyone who thinks that Microsoft has more than a slim chance of winning this case (or the appeal) has definitely inhaled.
The judge's tone has changed recently.
I don't see that, actually. There were two main comments from the judge that everyone talks about. The first is the one where he asked James Gosling, "didn't Microsoft just come out with a better product?" to which Gosling replied that better is in the eye of the beholder. But a judge who's going to come down hard on Microsoft would ask a question like that to cover all his bases, so you can't infer anything one way or the other. And the second comment was that AOL-Netscape may have changed the market landscape. But it certainly doesn't change the Operating System landscape, just the internet landscape. And the accusation is that Microsoft acted to preserve its monopoly in the Operating Systems area by doing nasty stuff to Netscape and others. That Netscape wasn't crushed by the nasty stuff Microsoft did is equivalent to somebody surviving a gunshot-- the shooter still is guilty, they just get 20 years in jail rather than Old Sparky. Similarly, the AOL-Netscape deal may effect the penalty phase, but not the guilt-innocence decision.
Not to mention that Microsoft is accused of a lot more than just aiming at Netscape.
|
