<< It's not as if Bill Gates was on drugs when he approved this, so what gives? >>
Possible:
A: No leg to stand on. What they did, they did blatantly, and the gov doesn't know the half of it.
B: And the economic theories used for PR dissemination, that are based on antitrust being wrongheaded in general, are bound to be of no interest to the courts.
C: They have to interview the higher ups, as they are supposedly more skilled at 'honest testimony', and know what subjects to stay away from. My impression from my own experience, is that the further down the MSFT management ranks you go, the more likely you are to get detailed examples and honest and cynical answers. And few outside technical stars support MSFT. As we have seen on this forum, 90% of MSFT support is from stockholders, 90% of the opposition is from engineers, which would make it hard to find credible outside witnesses with stature to support their technical excuses. So who can they put on the stand? I think less prominent but more coherent technical and financial experts would have been better, but still weak.
However, these higher ups are of the type who have always been poor liars, and have actually relied on bullying, money, toadies, and position to get their points accepted, albeit they do not know that. It is a generic human personality trait for people of high position that only the most self-aware escape. Most of them will look bad on the stand.
Cheers,
Chaz |
